VILLAGE OF MANLIUS – On Nov. 8, the Village of Manlius Board of Trustees considered a preliminary proposal for a drive-through Taco Bell restaurant at the site of the former fire station at4 Stickley Drive.
The property is located off Stickley Drive behind the Chase Bank and in front of the Manlius Recreation building.
Matt Napierala, P.E., of Napierala Consulting, presented preliminary designs for the redevelopment of the property on behalf of Hospitality Restaurant Group.
Also in attendance was Mike McCracken, director of asset development with Hospitality Restaurant Group.
Napierala explained that during “COVID times,” the property’s owner, David Muraco, of Empire Management of CNY, Inc., had a proposal for the reuse of the facility. However, due to multiple reasons, those plans fell through.
Hospitality Restaurant Group is now proposing a redevelopment plan that involves razing the former firehouse and constructing a new, modern facility in the form of an approximately 2,600-square-foot Taco Bell restaurant with drive-through service.
After outlining the developer’s vision for parking and customer/delivery access locations, Napierala explained that he and McCracken were appearing before the trustees because the project, as currently proposed, will require a special use permit to proceed.
“We are in a C1 zone, [so] in order to have that drive-through in the village, we need special permit approval,” Napierala said.
Napierala explained that the applicants previously held a work session with the village planning board chair and Mayor Paul Whorrall to initiate the special permitting process, but the board of trustees is the first formal board to see the preliminary plans.
Before discussing the drive-through any further, Napierala described what the building could look like from the outside.
He stated that the building’s exterior would feature a limestone wainscot, brick veneer, and “panelized sections on the top.” The front corner would have a tower and one of the sides would have an entry piece to accent the main door entrance.
Napierala emphasized that the building would have all “hardstone-type materials” and minimal Taco Bell branding.
“Taco Bell throughout the state is doing a lot of remodeling, and they are getting into the purples, and that becomes their branding,” he said. “Really, we are looking just at the logo and at the tower as far as what [the branding] would be. It’s a very nice-looking structure.”
The board then entered a discussion about the drive-through.
Napierala commented that, according to his calculations, the proposed facility could accommodate a 20-car drive-through queue before there would be any issues regarding public ways.
Deputy Mayor Scott McGrew expressed concern that the left-turn lane on Fayette Street might get backed up with traffic trying to turn onto Stickley Drive to get to the Taco Bell, especially because the traffic light does not currently have a left turn arrow.
Napierala said his team plans to discuss such traffic issues with the New York State Department of Transportation (DOT), but it’s not at that stage of the process yet.
Village Attorney Brad Hunt explained to the board that he and McCracken decided it would be best for the board of trustees to decide on the special use permit for the drive-through before turning the application over to the village planning board for its site plan review process.
“This board has authority to grant or deny the special use permit for the drive-through, and that’s it for this board,” Hunt said. “. . . The next step for this board would be to schedule a public hearing, which must happen before you vote on the special use permit.”
Trustee Hank Chapman and Codes/Zoning Official Mike Decker both alerted the attorney and the board that they were under the impression that the village code contains language that prohibits drive-throughs for restaurants or other food/beverage operations.
Chapman noted that Burger King was grandfathered in years ago and the incoming Starbucks is an exception because it is in a Planned Unit Development (PUD) district.
Hunt stated that if the code does in fact prohibit drive-throughs in such instances, the village would need to either amend the code provision or change the property’s zoning district to enable Taco Bell to offer drive-through service.
Before taking either of those paths, the board will need to decide whether it wants to open its commercial corridor to drive-throughs.
“The people of this generation now want fast food,” said Whorrall. “They want to be able to get in and get out. They want to be able to get in and get out of Dunkin’ Donuts. They want to get in and out of Starbucks. They want to get in and out of all these places. . . It’s just a different time. Things change. If we are concerned about the drive-through, that’s fine, but I don’t like it when we resort back to what it was years ago when people didn’t want [fast food]. There are a lot of things people didn’t want years ago. There are a lot of things people don’t want now that they had years ago. I think we have to go with the flow of the community and what the community looks for. . . Look at Starbucks on the boulevard. They are backed up out onto Erie Blvd. because people don’t want to get out [of their cars]. They will sit in line for 15 to 20 minutes waiting to go through the drive-through because they don’t want to get out of their vehicle and get caught inside.”
McGrew agreed with the mayor’s view that people want drive-throughs these days and that very few people are going into the store to get their purchases.
McCracken reported that his company makes over 90 percent of sales in the drive-through now. Prior to COVID, those percentages were in the high 60s.
Trustee Janice Abdo-Rott pointed out that if the village ends up making an exception for one drive-through restaurant, it could open the floodgates for other fast-food drive-throughs to move in.
McCracken responded that Fayette Street can present some barriers, like bad access, that could prevent developers of other fast-food establishments from moving in.
According to McCracken, the former fire station is particularly well situated in terms of customer access.
“It’s a very unique site right here because we can get off Fayette, not impact Fayette, and then get back on Fayette because of the traffic light,” McCracken said. “I can’t imagine another site up and down that corridor where we could do that, so you’re really limited to only a few corners where there are traffic lights. I think anybody that’s really in this business knows you don’t want a site where you can only come right in, right out. You just eliminated half the traffic. . . This is a very unique site. It’s very rare that it’s off the beaten path, but you can see it from the beaten path.”
Hunt recommended that before the board makes any decisions, he and Decker should examine the code closely and come up with an official interpretation of the language on drive-throughs.
“Either that interpretation will say, ‘You have authority to grant a special use permit’ or ‘You don’t,’ in which case you would have to amend the code or amend the zone,” said Hunt. “. . . Either you could amend the code provisions to say, ‘Here is what is allowed in a Commercial 1 district,’ or you could amend the zoning map to [change] the zoning district that this [property] is in.”
Hunt said he and Decker will plan on reporting back on the code interpretation at the December regular meeting.
Napierala remarked that if the board decides to go ahead with making the changes to allow for a restaurant drive-through use, the village can be very specific about the definition of a drive-through.
“You can qualify that with, ‘You need to provide X number of queue spaces, and you need to provide a bailout lane,’” he said. “You can qualify what a drive-through means instead of just saying, ‘Yeah, now we can allow drive-through service in the village or in this particular zone.’ Detail it a little bit, think about it, ask for advice on [what drive-through means], because, again, that could help disqualify a small site along the main drag.”
Trustee Tom Pilewski concluded that he agrees with the mayor that the village needs to evolve in the direction of society.
“If a developer wants to do that, and the plan is solid, and everybody agrees on it, and there are ways to qualify the code. . . then I’m in favor,” Pilewski said.
Chapman wrapped up the conversation by summarizing the board’s next steps.
“We need to figure out what our code says — [what it] allows and doesn’t allow — and then if we want to change it or not,” he said.
In other news
Whorrall announced that the DOT has authorized the village to cut Pleasant Street off from Route 173 E by making the street a dead end at the top of the hill.
“The DOT has given us the okay because it’s our street,” he said.
The mayor explained that although the section of Pleasant St. above Sweet Cherry Street is limited to one-way traffic going out to 173, cars constantly make the illegal turn off the highway and down Pleasant Street.
“[People], especially the kids coming out of the high school that are driving, are using it as a thoroughfare to beat the traffic,” said Whorrall.
A Pleasant Street resident, who was present at the meeting and strongly in favor of the proposal, commented that cars also speed up the hill only to slam on their brakes at the stop sign.
Chapman explained that the Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council (SMTC) has been conducting a study for the past year or two on pedestrian, bicycle, and traffic access through the village. In December or January, the council is scheduled to present a series of recommendations to the board.
“They are not an authority or a board that has any control over anything other than [the fact that] they do a study to make recommendations,” he said.
One of those suggestions, according to Chapman, is to make Pleasant Street a dead-end at the top of the hill and to construct a bike path extending from the dead end up to the high school.
Chapman added that the SMTC informed the village that there is no accident history to justify the DOT funding the project. Therefore, if the village decides to move forward with the street cut-off and pedestrian path, it will need to pay for the work itself or secure grant funding.
“It certainly is a great benefit to the people at the top of the hill, I’m sure that that’s true, and the question I guess we need to think about is, ‘Who does it inconvenience and how much so?’” said Chapman. “[That’s] why I want to see the traffic counts as well. I don’t know that it’s going to inconvenience anybody, but it would be interesting to know.”
He also remarked that the project is just an idea at this point.
“It’s going to take a little bit of [figuring] out and design and consensus and meetings and things like that and cost analysis before we can even consider it, but I think it’s a great step in the right direction for sure,” he said.
Chapman also said he thinks the board needs to open a village-wide discussion on the proposal before taking any actions.
“It doesn’t mean they are going to have veto power, but we want to hear what everybody’s concerns are so there’s not something we’re not thinking of that comes up later and becomes an issue,” he said.
Manlius Village Board meetings begin at 6:30 p.m. on the second Tuesday of every month in the Manlius Village Centre Board Room, 1 Arkie Albanese Ave., Manlius.
