Starbucks project still in limbo

It’s looking like Starbucks may go the way of Tim Hortons in Chardon.

That is unless the Seattle-based coffee chain or some city Planning Commission members have a change of heart.

The Commission held a special meeting Dec. 7 to review an alternate concept plan for a Starbucks with drive-through and patio at 255 Center St., at the corner of Cherry Avenue.

A conditional-use permit and three variances were approved Nov. 16 for the drive-through on a 2,213-square-foot building.

However, the concept plan was denied 4-3. Concerns included stacking of vehicles impeding traffic in the parking lot and potentially on Cherry, left turns onto Cherry and the drivethrough being visible from a major thoroughfare.

Some members sought a revised concept with the front of the building facing Center instead of Cherry.

Commission Chairman Andrew K. Blackley indicated that the revision wasn’t up to snuff.

“I don’t think any serious attempt was made to make it work,” he said.

Developers Greg and Ryan Sommers defended the original concept and emphasized that Starbucks hadn’t agreed to turning the building 90 degrees.

“We sincerely and genuinely looked at every option to see if we could make that work,” Greg Sommers said. “Unfortunately, f lipping the building just causes a whole variety of issues — traffic loading in the drivethrough, pavement up to the right-of-way, lack of landscaping, the dumpster being located toward the main street.”

He added that the architects went “above and beyond” to create an attractive project.

“The building’s going to be an asset that’s going to complete the corridor there when people drive i nto town,” he said. “I mean, we used to have that old white house right on the right-ofway falling over.”

Commission member Hannah Sekas noted that the drive-through can be seen regardless of the direction the building faces.

Blackley agreed, but said it wouldn’t face a primary road if the building is flipped.

“We’re not trying to hide it, we’re trying to make it not be a prominent feature of the architecture,” he said.

Sommers voiced some of the company’s concerns.

“The last thing Starbucks

wants is to have a scenario where it’s not efficient, having issues with the city (and) complaints about traffic,” he said. ‘With turning the building, we are going to have less space and cars sitting on Cherry Street, and that’s also a major concern.”

Commission member Mary Jo Stark took issue with that comment.

“You guys stood by your (vehicle) stacking reports last time, you swore by them, and now you’re waffling,” she said.

City officials asked for more information to make side-by-side comparisons between the original plan and the alternate.

“The orientation that was given to us, to me, is not anywhere optimal of what could be done with this site,” Blackley said. “Among the commission, we have here people with literally decades of site design experience, and so this is not something new to us, not something we’ve never seen before. And we all can envision ways in which we think it could work out quite well, but we’re not here to literally redesign your site for you.”

Sekas pointed out that the city doesn’t have a code against drive-throughs being visible from a main road.

“I’m kind of confused as to why we’re trying to enforce a ‘rule’ that’s not really a rule at this point, which is the location of the side of a drive-through,” she said.

Chris Courtney, an engineer for the city, affirmed the city’s right to provide such feedback.

“Truly an effort to try and minimize variances and maximize the aesthetics of the site in light of granting the variances is a very fair ask of the developer,” he said.

Project architect Tyler Rice said much effort has gone into the initial design.

“Like we said at the last meeting, we just didn’t throw this together a couple weeks ago,” he said. “We’ve been working on it a year and a half, and … there isn’t a perfect solution to the problem.

“(This) minimizes the number of variances; this is also based upon how Starbucks would like to use the site. They’ve done studies on how their traffic flows. I’ve seen this happen before. If they can’t get a site to work the way they want it to work, they walk away.”

A couple of neighboring business owners raised concerns about increased traffic.

“My other thought is, maybe the site’s too small for Starbucks,” said land owner Joe Novak.

Blackley responded, “Unfortunately, any use that goes into the site is probably going to increase traffic, especially compared to the old McGregor house that was there previously. People have a legal right to have benefit of the property. To some degree we can’t deny the use of the site based solely on additional traffic, but can, however, try to mitigate traffic impact and we’re certainly trying to do that.”

Ryan Sommers said the corner is the only location in the city that worked for the project.

“We recognize that it’s a tight site, but it’s a very important site, it’s very prominent, and Starbucks is an unbelievable tenant to bring to the community,” he said. “In fact, we tried for a long time to get them here and they finally agreed, so it’s almost certain (with) a major reconfiguration, you’re saying no to Starbucks and no to them coming to the city.”

He noted the new jobs and taxes the project would bring to the city.

Blackley said he wasn’t ready to vote on the plan as is, but Sekas made a motion to support it, seconded by

Colin Wantz.

“I think there’s been enough research done and, based on the testimony today, they’ve looked at all these other avenues,” she said.

The commission was short a member and the vote ended in a 3-3 tie, with Dean Peska joining those in favor, and Stark and Lene Miller voting no with Blackley. Christopher Grau was absent.

Now the developers are left with the option of bringing more convincing information to the Dec. 21 meeting.

“We want to work with you,” Blackley said. “We want the site to work as much as anybody else, but three of us have divergence of opinion on how the building should be oriented and that’s OK, that’s part of our function is to render our opinion as to what we think the best configuration is, and we’ve done that.”

Greg Sommers asked if there was anything his team could do to work with the original concept, perhaps adding landscaping along the Center Street side, to get approval.

“We’re not trying to say take it or leave it,” he said.

“Well, that’s what we’re hearing,” Blackley replied.

After the meeting, Sommers was diplomatic.

“We had a constructive and thorough discussion with the Planning Commission during last night’s meeting and look forward to working with the city and administration to address any remaining concerns regarding the final concept plan approval,” he said.

Tim Hortons, known for its signature coffee, last year submitted plans for a new prototype concept at the northeast corner of Water Street and Cherry.

The application for a dual drive-through restaurant on 0.4 acres of vacant land required several variances. Representatives of a neighboring business raised concerns about traffic. The application subsequently was withdrawn.

“My other thought is, maybe the site’s too small for Starbucks.” — Joe Novak