Gahanna planning commission denies Skin and Sugar’s pink exterior plan

The Gahanna Planning Commission on Wednesday voted to deny a major development plan for Skin and Sugar at 63 Mill Street after commissioners concluded the building’s pink exterior was inconsistent with Creekside design guidelines.

The vote followed a staff recommendation to disapprove the application as submitted and testimony from the applicant, Sarah Jacobson, who said the paint was applied after contractors told her no permit was needed. "We did not do this with any, again, malicious intent," Jacobson said during the public hearing.

The denial matters because the Creekside Mixed Use zoning district includes stricter exterior design standards than other parts of the city’s zoning code. Staff told the commission the city requires approval for any exterior color not explicitly listed as permitted; the applicant submitted a softer tan as a backup option that staff said would meet code.

Michael Blackford, director of planning, told commissioners the pink paint was applied in September before city approvals and that the city’s code treats colors not on the approved palette as requiring a development plan. "Staff recommends disapproval of the major development plan as submitted," Blackford said, and noted the applicant had offered a tan option that would comply.

Jacobson, the business owner, said she purchased the building in November 2022 after it had been vacant for roughly two years and opened the Skin and Sugar location in early October. She told the commission her construction team contacted the city before painting and was told a permit was not required; she said that led to the work proceeding without realizing a development-plan approval was needed.

Commissioners debated whether some pink could be retained as an accent while bringing the overall building into compliance. Commissioner Shepaca said, "I like the idea of the branding. It is a little bright," and suggested limiting the pink to trim or the entrance. Commissioner Tamarkin said his "concerns is setting precedent" and favored strict compliance with the code. Several commissioners said they were sympathetic to the owner’s investment in the building but concluded the application did not meet the required design criteria.

A motion to approve the application (item dpdash0001dash2025), moved by Mister Suriano and seconded by Mister Shepaca, failed on a roll-call vote. The tally showed seven votes against the motion and no votes in favor; the motion failed. Staff had previously indicated they would accept the softer tan color as an alternative that met code.

The commission’s action means the applicant will need to either submit a revised plan demonstrating that 25% or less of the building would remain nonconforming (in which case a development plan would not be required) or repaint the property to a permitted color and seek any necessary permits. Jacobson said she understands the possible need to repaint and appreciated the commission’s time.

The application record lists the property as parcel ID 025-0000100. The development plan hearing also included staff photos of the painted facades and swatches showing the current light pink and the alternative softer tan color.