BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
Present: Ashlin Caravana,Don Contini, Bob Essman,Lon Herman,Eric Stewart
Also Present:Joe Hickman, Acting Village Planner;Sandy Ellinger,Acting Secretary
Minutes:June 27. 1996: Mr. Contini moved to approve minutes as submitted;Mr. Herman
seconded;MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
George Fackler, 1960 Newark-Granville Road
George Fackler has submitted a conditional use request for a multi-use development the southwest at corner ofNewark-Granville Road and Cherry Valley Road. The development will
include a 1,500s- qf.t-. bank with drivet-hru, a 6,500s- qf.t-. delib-akeryc/onvenience center with
drivet-hru,a 6,500s- q.ft-. restaurant,a 3,000s- qf.t-. real estate office,and a 5,000s- q.ft-. future
retailo/ffice space. The bank with drivet-hru,convenience center with drivet-hru,and the
restaurant are all conditional uses in the Suburban Business District (SBD).The future
retaiol/ffice space will have to submit a separate application when the type of use is determined. The real estate office does not need a conditional use permit.
Mrs. Caravana reviewed the criteria which must be met to qualify for a conditional use permit,as follows:
1)The proposed use is a conditional use within the zoning district and the applicable development standards ofthis Zoning Ordinance are met.
2)The proposeduse is in accordance with appropriate plansfor the area andis compatible with existing use.
3)The proposed use will not create an undue burden on publicfacilities and services, such as streets,utilities,schools,and reftise disposal.
4)The proposeduse will not be detrimental or disturbing to existing neighboringuses andwill not entail a use,structitre,or condition ofoperation that constitutes a nuisance or hazardto any persons or property.
Mr. John Oney,the project architect,presented a site rendering on which he reviewed the
revisions made pursuant to Planning Commission requests ( e.g.,the addition of perimeter and
interior walkways,the relocation of the curb-cut on Newark-Granville Road to the west 6f its
original position,the potential for shared access on the south side,and the potential for a bikepedestrian
lane)a,nd stated the project mete/xceeded provisions of Sections 1145, 1171, and
Virtually all of the succeeding discussion centered on the proposed drive-thru for the
deli-bakery/ convenience center,and addressed the issues of a pedestrian culture v. an auto
culture,traffic flow concerns ( especially in peak hours), and the project's overall image. Mr.
Phil Wince,attorney for the project's investors, maintained that the drive-thru was " an important
aspect of the overall concept. Mr. Wes Raynor,the principal investor, emphasized that the
intent was to market gourmet food,not beer and wine. Mr. Raynor also felt that the projected
hours of operation would preclude an emphasis on drive-thru beer sales..
Mr. Herman noted that,once approved, there would be no recourse for Village governing
bodies if the business were so successful that its owners decided to stay open later than 10:00
pm. Mr. Stewart felt the project's pedestrian orientation would suffer in direct relation to the
success"of the drive-thru. Mrs. Caravana asked specifically if the project's success depended
on the drive-thru,or if it was included just for convenience.
Several citizens' comments were heard at this time: Mr. John Ghiloni of Newark,one of
the project's investors, said he was all for it. Mr. Carl Wilkenfeld of Granville said the project
had his general support,except for the drive- thru; he also felt that " inside"customers would
spend more money. Ms. Cynthia Cort of Granville felt the drive-thru was incompatible with the
nature of the business.
Mr. Joe Ridgeway,the project team's traffic consultant,when asked to comment on whether there would bea total increase in non-passer- by traffic,cited Table II of the Traffic
Impact Analysis,and projected that the convenience center would be the heaviest generator of
traffic. Mr. Herman asked if this would be true with or without the carry-out;Mr. Ridgeway
was unable to give a definitive answer. Mr. Ridgeway also cited Table I,showing estimated
traffic flow of 19.75 vehicles/ 1,000 sq.ft. for the drive-thru. Mr. Herman asked how that
compared to other restaurant drive-thru's, and Mr. Ridgeway said it was " substantially lower,"
though he could not cite any specific numbers. Mrs. Caravana asked about stacking in the drive- thru lanes,and Mr. Ridgeway responded that it was not expected to go v"ery far"outside the building. Mr. Tim Snyder,the sitep-lan engineer,said three lanes is p"retty standardf"or bank drive-thru's.
Mr. Herman expressed concern that twot-hirds of the morning traffic was projected to be generated by the convenience center,referring to it as a " made-up"category whose projections
were not based on any hard data. He emphasized that it was critical to be as clear as possible because of the ramifications of the pending decision. Mr. Stewart expressed concern that Cherry Valley Road would be developed to the point where it could no longer serve as a
connector"between Newark-Granville Road and the areas on Cherry Valley Road south of S.R.
Mr. Ridgeway noted that,at Mr. Tailford's request,they were requesting full access from
both Cherry Valley Road and Newark-Granville Road,and anticipating that no improvements
would need to be made if this were the case. Mrs. Caravana asked Dave Samuelson of
Worthington,Council's traffic consultant,to comment. Mr. Samuelson replied that any of three
conditions would provide satisfactory traffic flow: 1)to restrict outbound left turns onto
Newark-Granville Road,2)to restrict inbound left turns from Newark-Granville Road, or 3)to
add left-turn lanes to Cherry Valley Road and/ or Newark-Granville Road if traffic reached the
point of "unacceptable delays."Mr. Herman reminded everyone that the Village Council had
already said there would be no third lane added to Newark-Granville Road. Mr. Samuelson
remarked that this would simply shift the burden to Cherry Valley Road. Mr. Essman added that
all intersections in the area are already at Level B; restricting turns from Newark-Granville Road
<Cp- would movsf,herry Valley Road to a Level C. Mrs. Caravana raised the issue of the d/ tdheavtewloepneeres(d)Ttoooctoinngsitdheerbthilel tfootraQl tlreaffftit-curinmlpaancet oonf tChheefruryllVyad-elleveyloRpoeadd,and reminded everyone tract, not just the
Mr. Contini emphasized to the project's investors that he felt the proposed layout was perfectt,h"e building was b"eautifula,"nd that a drivet-hru would r"ob their image"and detract
from the overall quality of their business enterprise.
Mrs. Caravana and Mr. Herman proposed the following: 1)that no left-turn lane on Cherry Valley Road would be required if Council could be assured of low traffic levels;2)that the deli-bakery/ convenience center drive-thru should therefore be eliminated; 3)that the bank
have only two drive-thru lanes instead of three;and 4)that there be no incoming left turns permitted from the NewarkG- ranville Road side. It was Mr. Samuelson's opinion that allowing incoming left turns without a turn lane would create more of a problem than diverting the traffic to Cherry Valley Road.
A straw poll of the Board showed that Mr. Stewart agreed about the convenience drive- thru but was unsure of reducing the bank from three lanes to two;Mr. Contini agreed about the convenience drive-thru,would prefer three lanes at the bank to potential stacking problems if there were only two,and was undecided about left-turn lanes;Mr. Essman agreed about the convenience drive-thru,and had no preference about two v. three lanes at the bank.
Mrs. Mary Kay Roberts ofGranville,who lives adjacent to the Fackler property on the Feaasctksleidre. ofCherry Valley Road,was recognized by the Chair and spoke in support ofMr.
Mr. Wince asked the Board iftheir objection to the convenience drivet-hru was solely because ofthe traffic issue,or also concerned the product to be sold. Mr. Herman replied that there was no way to guarantee the product,i.e.,to keep the drive-thru from becoming a beer
e a. dock. He also felt the traffic flow projection was highly speculative. Mrs. Caravana added that,
Sise,she felt the drivet-hru was in"compatible with the project's image"and the convenience
factor would be easily outweighed by the negative connotations of a drive-thru; that was not
sufficient reason to deny the use. Mr. Contini acknowledged that the Board could not " dictate
imageb,"ut reiterated that the drivet-hru did not fit the image the investors were trying to
project. Mrs. Caravana emphasized that it was the Board's job to limit nuisance factors in any
request,which meant limiting traffic and its negative effects as much as feasible. She felt that
the complex had an excessive number of drive-thrus ( 4).The deli-convenience store drive-thru
might generate substantial traffic at a crowded pedestrian walkway in a dangerous fashion and
that exhaust from the queued traffic would present a nuisance to the pedestrian and cafe areas.
Mr. Wince asked if the Board's stance on the drive-thru would change if the project investors
were to " entertain"installing the left-turn lane. Mrs. Caravana replied that the she was leaning
toward leaving the road alone,preferring to choose uses that produced less traffic, i.e.,that the
future needs of the road would depend on the types of businesses that went into this area. In this
way, a decision about a turn lane could be made when the next business to the south of this
project was approved.
Mr. Raynor emphasized that his deli-bakery was " not trying to emulate failure. It would
contain no wall of coolers, no neon, and no plastic beer signs; food is intended to be the primary product.
There was consensus among Board members that protecting the pedestrian ambiance is vital.
The project investors' team asked for a short recess to confer. Afterwards,Mr. Wince reported
they felt the Board's stance on the drive-thru was unfair because Wendy's has a drive-thru.
Also,they feel strongly that the drivet-hru is an integral part of their concept,and they are not selling anything not already being sold. Mr. Wince also noted that Mr. Fackler had been in
possession of a liquor license for 14 years without using it for commercial purposes.
Mrs. Caravana responded to Mr. Wince's statement by emphasizing that no-one but the investors
was in favor of the drivet-hru,in great part because of how much of a problem the Wendy's drive-thru has caused. She hoped the Board would not " be bound by [its]mistakes."
MRS. CARAVANA MOVED THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST BE APPROVED, WITH THE CONDITION THAT 1)THERE BE NO DRIVET-HRU ATTACHED TO THE DELIB- AKERYC/ONVENIENCE CENTER,and 2)THERE SHOULD BE NO INCOMING LEFT TURNS FROM NEWARKG- RANVILLE ROAD;OTHERWISE THE PROPOSAL MEETS STANDARDS A,B,C,and D FOR CONDITIONAL USAGE. MR. HERMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE BOARD APPROVED IT BY A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE.
Adjournment: 9.45 p.m.
Sandy Ellinger,Acting Secretary
BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS