200 South Hamilton Road

Gahanna, Ohio 43230

City of Gahanna

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, May 14, 2025

7:00 PM

City Hall, Council Chambers

CALL MEETING TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/ROLL CALL

Gahanna Planning Commission met in regular session on May 14, 2025.

The agenda for this meeting was published on May 9, 2025. Chair John

Hicks called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. with the Pledge of

Allegiance led by Sarah Pollyea.

7 -

Present

John Hicks, James Mako, Sarah Pollyea, Michael Suriano, Michael

Tamarkin, Thomas W. Shapaka, and Michael Greenberg

ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2025-0103

Planning Commission meeting minutes

A motion was made by Greenberg, seconded by Pollyea, that the Minutes be

Approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

7 - Hicks, Mako, Pollyea, Suriano, Tamarkin, Shapaka and Greenberg

Yes:

SWEAR IN APPLICANTS & SPEAKERS

Assistant City Attorney Matt Roth administered an oath to those persons

wishing to present testimony this evening.

APPLICATIONS - PUBLIC COMMENT

V-0013-2025

To consider a Variance Application to vary Section 1103.09(e) - Small

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

property located at 307 Rivers End Road, Parcel ID 025-000666; Current

Zoning R-3 - Small Lot Residential; Don Mack, applicant.

City Planner Maddie Capka provided a summary of the application; see

attached staff presentation. The application is for a variance at 307

Rivers End Road. Capka provided a view of the zoning map showing the

parcel along with its adjacent parcels, which are zoned R-3, Small Lot

Residential. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to allow a

detached garage within a side yard setback. The garage is 900 square

feet and located entirely to the rear of the existing house. For all

properties zoned R-3, the side-yard setback is five feet, which is the

lowest side yard setback for any zoning district. The garage is only three

feet from the south property line, so it encroaches two feet into the

required setback. There was a building permit approved for the garage,

and the approved permit showed the garage at five feet from the side

property line. When a foundation inspection was performed the inspector

found that the garage was only three feet from the property line and the

inspection failed because it did not match the approved plans. Because

the garage is no longer compliant with the zoning code a variance

application is required. The applicant states that the garage was built in

the wrong location because they didn't notice the five-foot setback shown

on the plans.

Capka then shared a site plan, highlighting the garage in purple. She

then provided elevations of the garage. The top left elevation is the front

and that is what faces the right-of-way. She then shared some images of

the property, showing the current state of the garage. She noted that the

foundation was installed very close to the fence. Another image showed

the street view from July of 2024. The red box shows the approximate

location of the garage, a portion of which would be visible from the

right-of-way.

There is one variance associated with this application, which is for

chapter 1103.09(e) which states that accessory structures must be at

least five feet from the side property line. Capka provided the variance

criteria that must be met in order for the application to be approved. One

criteria of note is the very last one, which states the practical difficulty

could be eliminated by some other method even if the solution is less

convenient or more costly to achieve. One of the reasons that the

applicant requested a variance is because they state that the project

would be costly to move the garage. Capka noted cost cannot be taken

into account when assessing a variance application.

Staff recommended disapproval of the variance as submitted. Since the

garage was initially approved at five feet from the side property line,

there is sufficient room on the site for the garage to meet all setback

requirements. The variance criteria was not met and cost is not a factor.

However, the neighbor to the south stated that they support the variance

and they are the neighbor closest to the garage.

Chair Hicks opened public comment at 7:09 p.m.

Don Mack, 307 Rivers End Road. Mr. Mack explained that he purchased

the home with the intent to live in Gahanna permanently. It was built in

1960 and required extensive renovation. He purchased the property in

July of 2024 and began the garage project in August. He explained that

in January of 2025 he fired the initial contractor, and hired a second

contractor. Issues were caused due to a language barrier. Mr. Mack

explained he was aware of a one-foot setback but not of the five-foot

setback.

He noted that he would not have proceeded with the Variance if there

were safety issues, but the fire and police departments signed off on the

project, stating that having at least a three-foot setback is not a safety

issue. Mr. Mack also stated his neighbor nearest the side of the

construction, Caleb Redfern, supports the application.

Mr. Mack referenced the photos that staff shared. There were two large

trees that were against the fence along the property line, which put leaves

and debris into Mr. Redfern’s yard. Mr. Mack stated that Mr. Redfern was

pleased that Mr. Mack removed the trees in preparation for the garage.

Chair Hicks closed public comment at 7:11 p.m.

Mr. Greenberg asked if Mr. Mack was in contact with other neighbors

regarding the project. Mr. Mack explained that he was in contact with

neighbors in the process of cleaning up the lot, and all were pleased with

the progress. Regarding the garage project, the other lots are outside the

five-foot setback, and Mr. Mack did not receive feedback from those

neighbors. Mr. Greenberg confirmed with the clerk that there was no

other correspondence received from neighbors. Mr. Greenberg asked

Mr. Mack when he realized the garage construction was out of

compliance with city code. Mr. Mack explained that the City of Gahanna

sent out someone to inspect the footer once it was in place. Building and

Heating Inspector Mike Frey conducted the inspection and approved the

footer. Later, an outside inspector for the foundation conducted an

inspection and noted that the footer was too close to the property line.

Afterward, he noticed the setback on the plans and submitted the

Variance Application.

Mr. Suriano confirmed that the structure is in compliance with the rear

setback. He wondered if the dimensions were correct and simply in the

wrong spot, or if the structure was too large. Mr. Mack confirmed the

dimensions are correct. The garage is 30 feet by 30 feet. To be

compliant with code, the entire structure needs to be moved two feet. Mr.

Suriano asked if Mr. Mack discussed moving the structure with the

contractor. Mr. Mack stated the contractor expressed that it would be

time consuming and labor intensive, approximately $8,000 to $10,000 in

cost, in addition to the delays. He recognized that cost is not a factor for

the Planning Commission. Mr. Suriano wondered who made the mistake,

and if the contractor did not read the drawings correctly, noting that a

mistake on the contractor’s part would not be the responsibility of the

owner.

Mr. Tamarkin asked if the fence shown in the images was the neighbor’s

fence or Mr. Mack’s fence. Mr. Mack stated the fence is the neighbor’s.

He added that there was a galvanized chain link fence on the property

when he bought the property, which was against the neighbor’s fence.

The fence was removed when Mr. Mack purchased the property.

Mr. Shapaka inquired about the overall cost of the garage. Mr. Mack

stated it is about $60,000. Mr. Shapaka wondered about the possibility

of simply shaving two feet off one side and moving one wall, and whether

it would affect the operation of the overhead doors. Mr. Mack noted there

is a solar panel planned for the garage roof, which factors into the

design. Mr. Shapaka explained one reason for the five-foot setback

requirement is to provide for the ability to clear debris. Mr. Shapaka

wondered if Mr. Mack would be able to remove the six-foot fence along

the side of the garage, noting that it would be easier to clean up debris if

necessary. Mr. Mack noted that the fence is his neighbor’s, and he would

need permission to do so. Mr. Mack also stated the three-foot setback

would allow him enough space to clean the area. Mr. Shapaka clarified

that Mr. Mack did not intend to store anything between the garage and

fence, which Mr. Mack confirmed.

Mr. Shapaka confirmed with Ms. Capka that this plan was approved for

small lot residential. He then asked if the driveway required a variance, to

which Ms. Capka replied there was only a one-foot setback for the

driveway, so it met code requirements.

Mr. Mako asked the applicant whether the first contractor dug the

foundation for the footer. Mr. Mack stated the second contractor dug the

foundation and put the footer in, again highlighting the language barrier

between himself and the contractor. Mr. Mako wondered if it was a fair

assumption that the contractor was able to see that there was a five-foot

setback on the property. Mr. Mack felt that while this was a fair

assumption, he was unsure if the contractor understood the setback. Mr.

Mako then inquired with the administration as to whether the five-foot

side yard setback was the smallest within the city for residential lots. Ms.

Capka confirmed.

Ms. Pollyea asked Mr. Mack if the contractor planned to assume financial

responsibility for moving the garage footing if needed. Mr. Mack stated

he had not discussed that with the contractor yet. Ms. Pollyea asked if the

contractor had insurance, and Mr. Mack stated the contractor was

bonded. Ms. Pollyea wondered if there was an option to add gravel

between the garage and the fence, and Mr. Mack stated that he would

like to do so.

Chair Hicks remarked positively that Mr. Mack retained legal counsel.

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

Approved.

Discussion on the motion:

Mr. Suriano stated it is an unfortunate situation, and given the size of the

garage and the tight side yard setback, he would not be in favor of the

variance. He felt it would be the contractor’s responsibility to fix, considering

there were approved drawings.

Mr. Tamarkin expressed agreeance with Mr. Suriano. He stated that while the

contractor made an error, he was hesitant to set a precedent to permit a

three-foot side yard setback. For those reasons, he intended to vote no on the

application.

Mr. Shapaka noted that the applicant obtained a permit up front, met all his

obligations as a homeowner, and there will be no safety issues as a result of

this project. He stated his intent to vote in favor of the application, as he did

not want to penalize Mr. Mack, given the circumstances.

Mr. Mako empathized with the homeowner, noting this was a difficult situation

to be in. He felt the variance criteria for the application had not been met, and

stated the responsibility lies on the contractor, who made an error. He believed

it was the contractor’s duty to rectify the mistake. He stated he was not in

support of the variance.

Ms. Pollyea agreed with Mr. Mako. She believed the issue was a legal one.

She felt the only mistake Mr. Mack made was choosing the contractor. She

suggested he could have done more due diligence, but overall expressed the

mistake was not his fault. She noted that she sees issues like this frequently as

a real estate attorney, and suggested he meet with his legal counsel to learn

what his options may be. She stated she would not be in support of the issue.

Mr. Hicks also recommended that Mr. Mack pursue the discussion with his legal

counsel.

The motion failed by the following vote:

1 - Shapaka

Yes:

No:

6 - Hicks, Mako, Pollyea, Suriano, Tamarkin and Greenberg

One Church

DP-0002-2025

To consider a Development Plan Application for property located at 817

North Hamilton Road, Parcel ID 025-001918; Current Zoning RI -

Restricted Institutional; One Church; Tony Torres, 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.

City Planner Madde Capka provided a summary of the application; see

attached staff presentation. The project includes a major development

plan and variance application. It is at 817 North Hamilton Road, which is

the site of One Church. Capka provided a history of the applications for

One Church. In June of 2017, there was a design review application for

219 new parking spaces on the site. Then, in April of 2023, there were

design review and variance applications for the northeast parking lot with

a condition added for some additional screening, which increased the

total parking count on the site to 543 spaces which is where it sits today.

In May 2024, there was a design review application for some exterior

modifications to the building. That application did not include any parking

changes. In June 2024, there were design review and variance

applications for the temporary gravel lot, adding approximately 60 to 70

spaces in front of the main church building. The variance approval ended

in December 2024. The applicant requested a continuance through

another variance application in January of 2025, which was denied. In

August of 2024 there were Final Development Plan, Design Review, and

Variance applications for a new auditorium, around 342 new parking

spaces, and the removal of 187 trees. Those applications were denied.

Some of the reasons for the denial included screening between the

parking lots and the adjacent residential properties, as well as some

concerns from City of Gahanna staff on the reduced amount of parking lot

landscaping. Since the new applications, there have also been some

code changes. A new zoning code was adopted in May of 2024, and any

applications filed after that date must comply with the new code. Since

the previous applications from August of 2024 were denied, the applicant

had to resubmit the applications under the new code. Therefore, there

are some new zoning code requirements that apply to this project now

that did not previously. One of those requirements is for buffering and

screening. There are now additional screening requirements between

institutional uses and residential uses. Previously there was only

screening required between parking lots and residential properties. Now,

screening is required around almost the entire perimeter of the property

except for along Hamilton Road. There is also a new requirement for one

electric vehicle charging station per 25 parking spaces, which equates to

16 total electric vehicle charging stations. The applicant is requesting a

variance for the required number of electric vehicle charging stations.

Another requirement stipulates there can be no new parking areas in

front of the main building on the site. This proposal includes one new

parking lot that will be to the front of the main building in the southeast

corner of the lot.

The application includes a Major Development Plan and Variance for a

new auditorium and parking lot expansion. The auditorium is

approximately 19,500 square feet and will be attached to the front of the

existing church building to the east. The primary colors for the addition

are white and gray with an accent of chestnut siding. The total parking

space count with this proposal is 785 spaces. The zoning code requires

a minimum of 280 spaces for all uses on the site. The proposal exceeds

the minimum. None of the existing parking areas are being modified

except for the lot in the west, which is being removed and relocated.

Capka provided information on the landscaping proposed. There will be

61 trees located in the parking lot and around 11,000 square feet of

parking lot landscaping. The proposal meets all interior landscaping

requirements. The applicant is also providing an additional 186 caliper

inches of trees for requirements in chapter 914 of Gahanna City Code,

which is reviewed by the Parks Department. The applicant is also

proposing a six-foot high white vinyl privacy fence around the entire

exterior of the property except for along Hamilton Road. The proposal

removes 65 existing trees for the new pond, south drive, and the

northwest parking areas. However, 122 trees will still remain after the 65

are removed.

Capka provided a chart comparing the previous proposal from August

2024 to the current proposal. The total number of parking spaces with the

previous application was 885, while the current proposal is 785. The total

new parking area was previously 290,000 square feet, which included

redoing the main parking area just north of the church. This is the primary

reason for the large difference between the previous proposal and the

current proposal of 119,000 square feet. The parking lot trees for the first

proposal included 45 trees, which required a variance. The current

proposal includes 61 trees in the parking lot. The parking lot landscape

area is going from 16,000 to 11,000 square feet. Sixty-five trees will be

removed with this application. The applicant previously planned to

remove 187 trees. The size of the addition went from 22,000 ft to 19,500

feet.

Capka shared a presentation slide comparing the two site plans. Both

showed parking areas in the southeast and northwest corners. However,

there are fewer proposed parking spaces in those areas. Capka shared

the site plan for the updated proposal. She showed the location of the

new auditorium in between the existing building on Hamilton Road and

two new parking areas. The parking area in the southeast corner

requires a Variance because it is located to the front of the main church

building. The parking area lines up with the northeast parking lot. Capka

then shared a tree survey, showing which trees are being removed and

which trees will remain on the site. She noted that the majority of trees

remaining are located on the exterior of the site.

Capka then shared elevations of the auditorium, along with a rendering of

what the site would look like after construction. The colors for the planned

addition match the existing building colors.

Capka shared the Major Development Plan criteria that must be met in

order for the application to be approved. They are:

1. The development meets the applicable development standards of

the zoning ordinance

2. It is in accord with appropriate plans for the area

3. It would not have undesirable effects on the surrounding area

4. It would be in keeping with the existing land use character and

physical development potential of the area

The Variance criteria are:

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

essential character of the neighborhood

2. The variance is not likely to result in damage to adjoining properties

3. The variance is not likely to affect the delivery of government

services

4. The variance is not likely to result in environmental impacts greater

than what is typical for other lots in the neighborhood

5. The variance is necessary for the economical use of the property,

and such economical use of the

another method

property cannot be achieved through

6. The variance is not likely to undermine the objectives of the land use

plan

Capka added that these applications were filed before the two new

variance criteria were added. There are three variances included with the

variance application. The first is that parking areas cannot be closer to

the front property line than the front of the primary building. There is one

parking lot proposed to the front of the church, which is located 27 feet

from the front property line. The next variance criteria is that there's one

electric vehicle charging station required per 25 new parking spaces,

which would be a total of 16 spaces for this project. The applicant

proposes zero electric vehicle charging stations and instead would like to

install an electrical power pole location in case they have any electric

vehicle charging needs in the future. The last criteria is for buffering and

screening requirements, which states that there must be 55 trees within

10 feet from the property line to count toward buffer requirements. There

are no new buffer trees proposed; however, as the tree survey highlights,

many existing trees along the property line will remain.

Staff recommends approval of the major development plan as submitted.

The application meets the criteria and was revised to address concerns

from the community, planning commission, and City of Gahanna staff.

Additionally, there will now be a privacy fence around the entire property

and the parking lot landscaping and tree planting requirements are now

met. Approximately 122 trees will remain on site, while the former

application would have removed all of those trees. The addition is also

compatible with the existing buildings on the site in both design and use

and the auditorium is reduced by 3,000 square feet from the previous

proposal.

Staff also recommends approval of all three variances. The parking lot to

the front of the church building is in line with the existing northwest

parking lot, and the applicant states that part of the parking area cannot

be set back any further due to topography. Although there are no new

trees being planted for buffering requirements, around 122 trees will

remain, many of which are along the property lines. Capka noted that the

trees that are remaining on the lot are not eligible for preservation credit

because construction is occurring within 10 feet of the trees, so there is a

chance that some could be damaged during construction. Additionally,

there is the 6-foot high privacy fence, which will help mitigate negative

effects of the parking lots. Additionally, the applicant states that electric

vehicle charging stations are not compatible with the main use of the site

since visiting vehicles are typically only parking for approximately one

hour during church services. Additionally, they will have an electrical

power pole location if any electric vehicle charging stations are desired

in the future.

Chair Hicks opened public comment at 7:44 p.m.

Tony Torres, 106 West 4th Street, Santa Ana, California introduced

himself as the architect and representative of the project. He

acknowledged City Planner Capka’s presentation and noted design

changes made to address neighbors’ concerns. Parking spaces were

reduced by about 100 spaces. The auditorium was reduced in size. A

six-foot vinyl fence is now surrounding the site, and all parking that is

facing the property line was removed. All parking now occurs within the

planter islands. Mr.Torres stated that eight months ago, when the original

application was denied, the church asked the architect, civil engineer,

and the landscape architect to come back with the new design to

address the neighbors’ concerns, and he felt they did.

Pete Ferguson, 386 Castle Pines Drive, introduced himself as the

president of the Castle Pines Condo Association. Mr. Ferguson stated

he was speaking on behalf of the Association’s Board of Directors. He

highlighted positive things One Church recently did for neighbors,

including installing new fencing to buffer the parking lot adjacent to the

condominiums. Mr. Ferguson requested that One Church complete the

new fencing sections by closing a gap that is 3-to-4 feet. He explained

that there are two fences, one of which runs east and west from Hamilton

Road to Building 9 on the site, and another that runs north and south from

the existing parking lot up to Building 9. Mr. Ferguson stated there is a

section of fencing that was not filled in when it was built, which resulted in

church attendees using the space to cut through the condo association

property to get to an adjoining parking lot. Additionally, Mr. Ferguson

stated that the association would like to know if there is a different traffic

plan than the existing one. He noted that a church member put a “Do not

block driveway” sign out on attendance days, but most drivers do not

respect the sign. He stated that many times homeowners have to wait to

pull out onto Hamilton Road to go to their own churches, or other

activities on Sunday mornings. Mr. Ferguson closed his comments by

expressing concern for the planned location change of the pond. He

stated the association felt the pond was important and should not be

moved. They believe it is a spring fed pond that existed on that site for

decades. Finally, Mr. Ferguson questioned how many parking spots

were really necessary on the site.

Christy Nelson, 406 Castle Pines Drive. Mrs. Nelson presented three

issues. First was her concern about sound. Mrs. Nelson stated that

recently, a church band was practicing on an outdoor stage. The music

was amplified, and was ultimately turned down after she called the

church. She appreciated the church’s response, but requested that the

stage not be used for musical performances or other presentations using

microphones, as it causes a disturbance. She stated the stage is about

65 feet to the association’s closest condominiums. She requested that

the new construction plans not be approved if they include any outside

speakers or any connections for sound that amplify into the community.

The second point Mrs. Nelson raised was regarding light and a large

projection screen that faces the Castle Pines community. Mrs. Nelson

shared a series of photos with the Commission; see legislative file for

attachments. Mrs. Nelson stated the screen is typically on until about 9:00

p.m. Much of the light is currently blocked by other buildings on the site;

however, the proposed plans remove the small buildings, and Mrs.

Nelson anticipated more light entering the Castle Pines site. She stated

that they (the Castle Pines Condominium Association) request that the

fence along the area be taller than what is proposed in the new plan or

that the projection screen be turned off at dusk rather than 9:00 p.m. Mrs.

Nelson’s third and final discussion point was related to traffic. She stated

that due to the church’s three services, there is a lot of traffic in the area

until about 8:30 a.m. in the morning, until 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon. She

stated that about two-thirds of all church traffic drives past the six units of

Castle Pines. She requested on behalf of the condominium association

that the new drive associated with the request either be denied or the

fence along the area be made taller.

Char King, 305 Eastchester Court, expressed concern about drainage.

She stated a sewer test was requested, and ultimately wants to be

ensured that there will not be a water issue. Additionally, she expressed

disappointment with the white fence that was added around the property,

and stated her preference for a more natural-looking fence. She also

noted that concrete will come right up to her fence, and that the plan

discussed eliminating the trees behind her property. She requested that

adequate screening or trees replace what is removed.

Lauren Spero, 313 Eastchester Court. Ms. Spero began by

acknowledging the work that One Church did to improve communications

and be more collaborative with neighbors.She stated that the August,

2024 Planning Commission meeting left her with three main concerns.

The first was safety and security along the property line. The second was

a row of parking spots that were planned to be just a few feet from the

property line. The third was the plan to move the pond. Ms. Spero

expressed that her first two concerns were addressed and again

acknowledged One Church for their efforts. However, she expressed

concern about moving the pond to a different area of the site. She felt

there must be other ways to accomplish the goal of adding parking. She

shared her concern that moving the pond will further exacerbate flooding

in the area and eliminate critical green space. Ms. Spero then requested

that if the Development Plan application is approved with the relocation

of the pond, that the Commission not approve the Variance associated

with screening. She stated that while there is now a fence around the

property, it is for security purposes only and will not block any light or

noise considering elevations. Ms. Spero expressed that the best

screening for light and noise, both significant concerns, would be mature

trees and ones that can grow to provide cover. She asked the

Commission to require One Church to plant the 55 trees required by

code for screening from light and noise. She closed by noting that her

advocacy is not personal, and she appreciates what One Church is trying

to do for their parishioners, but she felt the plans would have a significant

negative impact on the surrounding neighbors.

Josh Wiener, 313 Eastchester Court. Mr. Wiener introduced himself as

Ms. Spero’s husband. He expressed that he is opposed to the removal of

the pond, as he, like his wife, believes it will have undesirable effects on

the surrounding area. He acknowledged the church for doing a better job

of communicating with the neighbors following the August 2024 Planning

Commission meeting, and felt the church made changes in order to

mitigate safety and privacy concerns, citing productive meetings with

church officials. However, he felt that the removal of the pond would be a

harmful mistake, noting specific concerns and questions he had for the

church. First, he expressed concern that the removal of the pond would

result in increased flooding and drainage issues on the property. The

new plans show the location of the proposed new swell and depict how

water will move through the system; however, he did not see a drainage

exhibit included in the materials posted, and wondered to what extent the

Planning staff and City Engineer reviewed the updated drainage plans.

Second, he shared appreciation that the Church is no longer planning to

remove many of the existing mature trees along the shared property line.

He wondered what would happen if some of the existing trees along the

property line are damaged beyond repair during construction and need

to be removed, no longer providing the planned screening. He requested

that the commission add a stipulation to require the church to plant new

buffer trees to replace any existing trees along the property line that

become damaged during construction. Mr. Wiener closed by again

acknowledging the church’s efforts to mitigate some of the neighbors’

initial concerns, he again hoped a new parking plan could be considered.

Brian Hofmann, 295 Eastchester Court. He noted that the newly

proposed plan contains several positive revisions from the proposal that

was presented in August 2024. Mr. Hofmann stated that he still had

concerns, similar to those heard when the previous plan was discussed.

He noted that the church’s land slopes downward from Hamilton Road,

which cannot be discerned from the overhead, two-dimensional views of

the plans. He said the properties sit above the church’s property, so the

six-foot privacy fence does not work as well as hoped. He conveyed that

keeping the existing natural screening is important for this reason,

adding that the most effective barrier is nature. He said there are

currently older trees and some brush growth, which is effective screening

for six months of the year. He also shared a concern that the church’s

property slope will be altered when the pond is moved. The pond is at a

natural low point, allowing for drainage to where the new pond will go.

Runoff from his property goes toward the existing pond. He said they

received a drainage plan from the church, but it raised questions, and he

is unclear as to where the City Engineer is in approving the plan and how

it may affect their properties. Mr. Hofmann also stated they are unclear

about what will happen to existing trees as the pond is filled in, a new

fence is installed, and what will happen if any trees are damaged during

the construction process. He recalled the history of screening concerns of

Castle Pines residents. He requested that the variance to not require the

church to add trees along property edges be rejected. He also had

concerns about how water is being managed through the installation of

proposed swales. He said it was not in the plans presented at the

meeting, and that there are some swales inside the fence on the church's

property and there are some that are outside. He expressed uncertainty

about how those swales will be installed without removing any existing

trees. Mr. Hofmann closed by thanking the church for their efforts to work

with neighbors, but asked that the Planning Commission take a serious

look at the variance regarding trees bordering the property to ensure

there are no detrimental effects regarding runoff.

David Depew, 317 Eastchester Court. Mr. Depew stated that he and his

wife Marcy are against the pond being removed. They felt there was too

much being done to the property, including too much parking, and the

project was oversized. He described the site as often being noisy.

Jay Bohman 336 Vista Drive. Mr. Bohman stated his agreement with the

section of the zoning code that requires parking lots to be no closer to the

street than the building. He stated that such zoning helps to make public

spaces in the city friendly to all, not just automobiles. However, he

expressed support for the variance allowing parking in front of the

building for this application, as it matches the existing conditions on the

rest of the lot and would have been permitted under previous zoning

code, under which the original submissions for this project were made.

Similarly, he felt the variance regarding electric vehicle charging stations

was appropriate.

Laura Newman, 795 Cherry Wood Place. Ms. Newman stated she lived

on a cul-de-sac that backs up to the south end of the church for over 27

years. She stated that she currently sees woods when looking out the

back of her home, adding that when a fence is placed there it will be

white. She requested it be dark green or brown, stating that white would

be an intrusive color.

Jill Martinowski, 376 Castle Pines Drive. Ms. Martinowski expressed

concern for the right-of-way of emergency vehicles getting into Castle

Pines on Sundays. She stated it is a safety issue for the Castle Pines

community.

There being no further members of the public wishing to speak, Chair

Hicks closed public comment at 8:10 p.m. and permitted the applicant to

address comments.

Mr. Torres first addressed the continuation of the fencing. There will be

fencing completely on the north west and south portions of the property

line. The gap noted by Castle Pines residents will be closed. Mr. Torres

stated he would defer to the church regarding accommodations that can

be made for light pollution, and whether the large screen can be turned

off at dusk. Regarding sound, Mr. Torres stated that the church is in

compliance with noise ordinances, and concerns regarding amplified

sound were addressed, which neighbors confirmed. Mr. Torres stated

that regarding light poles, the zoning ordinance requires zero-foot

candles at the property line, so light should not be cast into the neighbors’

backyards. Mr. Torres also stated the worship center will move further to

the east, away from the neighbors. Issues will be addressed to ensure

noise does not carry to the neighboring properties. They feel the position

of the building will address these concerns. Regarding parking

requirements, they acknowledged that the zoning code requires a spot

for every three individuals. Now, it is more likely that one spot is needed

for every two people. Considering about 1,400 seats, the current parking

load is appropriate. If adequate parking is not provided on the lot, Mr.

Torres stated that the surrounding neighborhood would be impacted. Mr.

Torres shifted to the fence color, suggesting that the church may be

willing to work with neighbors on the color of the planned fence. He then

acknowledged the concerns regarding the pond. Mr. Torres stated that

as far as the civil engineer could tell, the pond was filled by runoff and not

by a spring. It is not designed to keep water on site, while code states

that the water must be kept on site. The new pond design is at a point

where the site naturally drains to, on the southwest corner. It will help

prevent water going off the property. Mr. Torres asked Deputy Clerk

McGuire to share a presentation on the overhead projector. Mr. Torres

stated there would be a new swale at the north part of the property, along

with drain basins that will be installed to bring the water down to the pond.

Mr. Torres invited Shawn Lanning, Verdantis Civil Engineer, to discuss

the pond relocation. Mr. Lanning reiterated the understanding that the

pond was man-made and it is unknown how long ago it was put in, but

that it was on the site for many years. He stated that the southwest corner

of the lot is the lowest point, which is where the new pond will go. Mr.

Lanning noted there is an existing park with another pond just outside the

southwest corner of the site. He stated the site was never previously

engineered to drain properly, adding that any existing runoff from a large

rain event would be fixed with the updated site plan. The new site plan

has a swale all around it, which was marked in blue on the applicant’s

presentation. The runoff will be collected into storm pipes and then

distributed back out to the natural water course. Mr. Lanning offered

assurances that no new drainage issues would occur. He also explained

that the new parking lot will have dirt added to the area, because excess

dirt from the auditorium construction will be put in the area of the new

parking lot. So, it should increase the elevation slightly. He stated the

fence should be a bit higher than the existing ground. Mr. Lanning

explained that the engineering plans are about 60 days away from a

resubmittal, because they are contingent upon the Planning Commission

applications being approved. Mr. Torres closed the applicant’s response

to the comments by noting that the church improved its efforts to

communicate with the neighboring property owners, and that the church

wants to be a good neighbor.

Chair Hicks called a recess at 8:19 p.m. and returned from recess at

8:30 p.m.

Chair Hicks opened the floor for questions from the Commission.

Mr. Greenberg acknowledged the Church’s efforts to be more

communicative with residents. He asked Mr. Torres to point out the

dumpsters on the screen. The dumpsters were notated in the southwest

area of the site, and will be enclosed. Mr. Greenberg then inquired what

level of flooding the site would be engineered to withstand, a 100 year

flood, for example. Mr. Torres responded it is designed for a 100 year

flood. Mr. Greenberg then asked Planning Department staff if the City

Engineers were responsible for making sure that the pond is designed to

adequately handle the drainage. Ms. Capka confirmed that the

Engineering Department would review the plans, adding that engineered

drawings are not required to be submitted as part of Planning

Commission applications. Mr. Greenberg then clarified that the

engineering of the parking lot is not a purview of the Planning

Commission, which staff confirmed. Mr. Greenberg then noted that traffic

is also a concern, and asked if a traffic study by the City of Gahanna

would cover internal traffic on the property, and wondered if this was

under the purview of the Planning Commission. Ms. Capka stated it was

not the purview of the Planning Commission. Mr. Greenberg asked the

applicant if the gap in the surrounding fence would be remedied. Mr.

Torres confirmed it would be completely closed on the northwest and

south portions of the site. Mr. Greenberg asked Ms. Capka what code

required for fence height. Ms. Capka stated code limits fence height to

six feet, so a variance would be needed to increase the fence height.

Code would be met with the current application.

Mr. Tamarkin asked if the fence would have any gates. Mr. Torres stated

no gates are planned for the fence. Mr. Tamarkin then asked if the fence

would be in the swale or inside the property line. Mr. Torres stated there

will be portions of the fence on the inside of the swale as well as on the

outside. Mr. Tamarkin confirmed with Mr. Torres that the swale is

primarily there for drainage purposes, for anything that does not drain on

the concrete through the drains. Mr. Tamarkin asked how many of the

existing 122 trees are on the inside of the fence and on the outside of the

fence. Mr. Torres stated about half of the trees are on each side of the

fence. Mr. Tamarkin asked for clarification on why the applicant felt 55

trees were no longer needed, as one of the variances requested to not

put in 55 trees required by code. Mr. Torres stated that the 55 trees are

required for screening; however, the six-foot high fence essentially meets

the screening requirements. Mr. Tamarkin noted there is a requirement of

a three-foot hedge, and inquired whether the hedge would run

continuously along Hamilton Road. Mr. Torres confirmed that the

southeast corner would have a hedge installed as required per City of

Gahanna code. Mr. Tamarkin asked if there were plans for signage in the

future, which Mr. Torres confirmed. Mr. Tamarkin noted the applicant

does not plan to redesign any of the existing parking. Mr. Torres stated

the church did not feel there needed to be a redesign of that area. The

only changes made will be to the areas where pedestrians will be

maneuvering. Mr. Tamarkin asked if there was really no need for electric

vehicle parking, or if there may be a need for a small number of spots.

Mr. Torres explained those parking spots would not regularly be used, but

they will be prepared for them in the future. Mr. Tamarkin concurred with

the applicant. Mr. Tamarkin noted that water management is not

necessarily under the purview of the Planning Commission, and will be

handled by Engineering; however, many neighbors expressed concerns

about flooding. Mr. Torres expressed confidence that the flooding

situation would improve, and water management would be handled

properly.

Mr. Shapaka asked if the pond was simply a pond, or was a detention

basin. Mr. Torres said the current pond is a pond, but the one proposed

in the plans will be a detention basin. It will not have standing water and

will be designed to go out into another natural waterway. Mr. Shapaka

noted a general rule of having property, is that property owners need to

collect the water on their property. However, in this situation, he observed

that water from the neighborhood is going onto the church’s property,

becoming their problem. He stated he has confidence in engineering for

the problem to be addressed. Mr. Shapaka then asked about the cost of

the parking lot. The estimated cost is about $3,000,000 for parking lot

improvements. Mr. Shapaka wondered how many parking spaces would

be needed in the future, and what options would be. Pastor Greg Ford

indicated that they would expand to another location in the future if

needed. Mr. Shapaka was curious if a parking garage would be

possible, but Mr. Torres noted that there would continue to be drainage

issues, and the parking lot would need to be reworked regardless, so

that water that flows onto the site remains on the site. Mr. Torres did not

feel a parking structure would increase their available parking spaces,

and it would be an estimated double the cost. Mr. Shapaka was curious if

the church would move to a new location if the parking plans are denied.

Pastor Ford explained that the church would add another location, but

would keep this site in Gahanna. Mr. Shapaka then asked where electric

vehicle spaces would be, if they were required to install them. Mr. Torres

said they would be placed near staff offices. Mr. Shapaka commended

the applicant for working with the neighborhood. He suggested that in

regard to traffic, the church should remind congregants to be considerate

and leave space for the Castle Pines drive. He also suggested that a

screen could be added to solve the issue of glare that neighbors see

from the screen. He felt that many of the issues were solvable.

Mr. Mako had additional questions about the proposed drainage swale.

He asked if it would be grass, rocks, or something else. Mr. Torres

stated his understanding that it would be plants in the soil. Mr. Mako

inquired as to whether the detention pond would be dry or wet, to which

Mr. Torres replied it would be a wet pond, and there will be water in it at

all times. Mr. Mako asked if the pond will be designed with safety

benches, which Mr. Torres confirmed. Mr. Mako noted the far northe

A motion was made by Greenberg, seconded by Tamarkin, that the

Development Plan be Approved.

Discussion on the motion:

Mr. Greenberg reiterated his appreciation of the Church to work with

surrounding neighbors, stating he would support the project.

Mr. Suriano stated he would abstain from voting due to a conflict of interest;

however, he provided some observations. First, he echoed Mr. Greenberg’s

sentiments regarding improved communication and outreach to neighbors. He

noted that the fence meets code for height, and some taller fences could pose

aesthetic and structural issues. He added that while it is not meant to block

sound, it would likely add some sound buffer. He also acknowledged that

while drainage is not the purview of the Planning Commission, he hoped to

reinforce that a detention basin is an engineered solution, whereas a pond is

not, and the basin would meet standards for runoff and stormwater collection.

Finally, regarding the tree buffer, he noted the applicant reduced the amount

of tree removal on the site, and felt that the privacy fence and maintaining

some existing trees would provide a better buffer than new saplings would.

Mr. Tamarkin also acknowledged the improved communication, as well as the

redesign of the parking lot compared to plans shared in August of 2024. He

noted that while it removed around 100 parking spots that the previously

proposed plan included, he hopes the proposed lot is sufficient to meet the

church’s needs, and patrons no longer have to park in other nearby parking

lots. He understood residents’ concerns about moving the pond, and removing

trees, he noted the removal sometimes comes with growth and development.

Mr. Tamarkin closed his comments by sharing his support of the application.

Mr. Shapaka said that One Church is a great institution for Gahanna to have.

He wished they had more acreage to grow into. He expressed a concern with

the detention basin, but believed the solution the engineer provided may be

the best one for the site. He stated his support for the application, adding that

the Development Plan Application meets code and the applicant is able to

develop their property as they see fit.

Mr. Mako also acknowledged the applicant for improving outreach to the

neighbors. He felt the Development Plan was significantly improved and stated

his intent to vote in favor of the application.

Ms. Pollyea agreed with her fellow Commissioners, stating her support for the

Development Plan Application. She appreciated the outreach to neighbors,

and hoped One Church continued to be communicative with neighbors. She

recalled that several neighbors expressed their appreciation to One Church’s

improved communications as well, and felt that no plan will satisfy every

single concern.

The motion carried by the following vote:

5 - Mako, Pollyea, Tamarkin, Shapaka and Greenberg

2 - Hicks and Suriano

Yes:

Abstain, COI:

V-0014-2025

To consider a Variance Application to vary Sections 1109.01(a)(1)

Location of Parking Areas, 1109.01(j) Electric Vehicle Charging, and

1109.04(c) Buffers and Screening of the Codified Ordinances of the City

of Gahanna, for property located at 817 North Hamilton Road, Parcel ID

025-001918; Current Zoning R-1 - Restricted Institutional; One Church;

Tony Torres, applicant.

A motion was made by Greenberg, seconded by Tamarkin, that the Variance

be Approved.

Discussion on the motion:

Mr. Suriano noted that there is a significant differential in grade compared to

Hamilton Road and the eastern edge of the log. There is precedent for a

landscape buffer just north of the property, similar to what is being proposed

on One Church’s application.

The motion carried by the following vote:

5 - Mako, Pollyea, Tamarkin, Shapaka and Greenberg

2 - Hicks and Suriano

Yes:

Abstain, COI:

A motion was made by Greenberg, seconded by Tamarkin, that the Variance

be Approved.

Discussion on the motion:

Mr. Shapaka stated that the logic of not installing any electric vehicle spaces,

but having conduit available for future spaces made sense, and that One

Church has shown their ability to adapt to situations. Therefore, he supported

the Variance.

The motion carried by the following vote:

5 - Mako, Pollyea, Tamarkin, Shapaka and Greenberg

2 - Hicks and Suriano

Yes:

Abstain, COI:

A motion was made by Greenberg, seconded by Tamarkin, that the Variance

be Approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

5 - Mako, Pollyea, Tamarkin, Shapaka and Greenberg

2 - Hicks and Suriano

Yes:

Abstain, COI:

UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE

NEW BUSINESS - NONE

OFFICIAL REPORTS

Director of Planning

Director of Planning Michael Blackford noted there would be no items for

a meeting on May 28th, so the next Planning Commission meeting would

be held June 11, 2025. He noted there were multiple projects in the area

of Tech Center Drive and The Crescent that would be coming forth.

Director Blackford acknowledged concerns of the neighbors regarding

traffic, specifically blocking driveways of the Castle Pines community. He

stated he would discuss the issue with the Public Service Department to

find out if the City could install “Do Not Block Drive” signage, or other

improved signage in the area.

Council Liaison

Council Liaison Sarah Pollyea stated that a major source of discussion is

a pre-annexation agreement that was approved by Council on May 5th

and brings eight acres from Jefferson Township into the City. The site is

4722-4736 East Johnstown Road and is currently Growing Solutions

Garden Center. It would potentially bring a mixed-use commercial and

multifamily residential development into the area. She stated that the

pre-annexation agreement is the first step of much more discussion and

additional public hearings. Additionally, there was discussion about

elected official salaries at the most recent Committee of the Whole

meeting, which can be watched on the City’s YouTube channel. Chair

Hicks noted that Planning Commission will not have any purview over the

pre-annexation agreement, but wondered whether there may be

concurrent zoning applications with it. Director Blackford stated project

details would be figured out through the rezoning process. The goal of the

developer is to have the annexation and rezoning happen at the same

time. Per preliminary discussions with the developer, it would be a

General Commercial zoning with a conditional use for Multifamily, and

likely an overlay adopted as well. Planning Commission would see that

project prior to anyone else.

Mr. Greenberg asked if other parcels beyond the Garden Center would

be included in the future. Director Blackford said there may be one other

small parcel adjacent to the site that is a township-owned parcel. He did

not believe that there would be additional annexation initially, but noted

there could be in the future.

Mr. Mako inquired about a pond on the site. Director Blackford stated

there was a pond.

Mr. Hicks noted that prior pre-annexation discussions created quite a lot

of attention in the community, and expressed curiosity about how this one

would develop.

CORRESPONDENCE AND ACTIONS

Chair Hicks noted that any emails received regarding tonight's

applications would be added to the legislative file.

POLL MEMBERS FOR COMMENT

Mr. Shapaka shared recent weight loss success, and plans to travel to

Machu Picchu, Peru, later this year. Members Mako and Greenberg

shared that they will not be able to attend the next meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business before the Planning Commission, the

meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m.