Commission approves Crescent retail and medical buildings and matching master sign plans in Crescent development

The Gahanna Planning Commission approved development plans and variances for two adjacent parcels in the Crescent area on Tech Center Drive: a multi‑tenant retail center with two buildings (eight tenant spaces) and a 11,900‑square‑foot medical office building. The commission also approved master sign plans that set standardized sign cabinet sizes and colors across both developments.

Planning staff said both sites present “double frontage” conditions — the retail and the medical sites face both Crescent Circle and Hamilton Road — that make some overlay and zoning rules impracticable to meet. Staff recommended approval of the retail development plan (DP-0042-2025), the retail variances (V-0016-2025), the mobile office development plan (DP-0005-2025), its variances (V-0017-2025) and the two master sign plans (MSP-0001-2025 and MSP-0002-2025).

Retail project details: the retail site includes a larger south building (~10,000 square feet) and a smaller north building (~6,500 square feet), for a total of eight tenant spaces, two drive‑throughs (one per building) and two patio areas. The design uses burgundy and gray brick with metal accents to match adjacent and nearby projects, and the site plan shows 127 parking spaces (one more than code requires) and six EV charging spaces (the number required by code). The applicant requested variances from the zoning code’s new requirement that each primary ground‑floor facade be at least 25% transparent glass (only one of the four primary facades met the requirement), from the requirement to place parking to the rear of the primary building (impracticable with two frontages) and from the requirement that dumpsters be located to the rear of the building.

Medical office building details: the Crescent MOB is a single‑story, 11,900‑square‑foot building on a 1.4‑acre site. Code requires 35 parking spaces for the medical use; the plan provides 49. The building uses the same brick palette as the retail buildings. Similarly to the retail parcel, staff recommended variances for façade transparency (both primary facades fall under the 25% transparency threshold), for parking placement to the rear (parking is in front because of lot shape) and for dumpster location (in the front parking area).

Master sign plans: staff described both MSPs as a way to ensure consistent signage across the new buildings. The retail MSP allows standardized rectangular sign cabinets for tenants, limits awning/canopy/electronic signs, and includes an option for up to two monument signs (Hamilton Road and Crescent Circle) on masonry bases that match building materials. The sign program sets cabinet widths and heights, restricts color to a specified gray background and allows only internally or halo‑illuminated cabinet signs. Staff said the overall sign area under the MSPs is larger than would be permitted under standard code for the retail site but that the cabinets produce a coordinated, maintainable appearance and that monument sign areas offered are smaller than standard code limits.

Applicant comments and tenant interest: developer Larry Canini (Canini & Associates) said retail and medical proposals are designed to serve both daytime employment and new nearby residents; the team has done soft marketing and reported community interest. For the medical building, Canini said three medical practices have commitments and that those tenants will be equity partners in the building, a structure the applicant said gives the practices ownership interest and stabilizes occupancy.

Commission discussion and votes: commissioners raised circulation, delivery and sight‑visibility questions and discussed how the double‑frontage condition constrained layout choices. Commissioners repeatedly noted that transparency variances were driven by energy‑code constraints and tenant layouts and that the dumpster and parking variances were logistical consequences of lot shape and frontage. The commission approved the retail and medical development plans and variances and approved both master sign plans in separate roll‑call votes. Motions were made by Commissioner Tamarkin with seconds by Commissioner Siriano (retail and medical approvals and sign plans) and the votes carried unanimously among commissioners present.

What happens next: the approvals allow the developers to advance to engineering, permitting and tenant fit‑outs. The sign master plans permit the developers to implement a coordinated signage program; tenant‑specific sign deviations (for example, larger proprietary logos or special canopy signage) would require further review.