Brook Park council pauses Circle K conditional-use push after traffic, zoning and neighborhood safety questions

Brook Park councilors on Tuesday heard more than two hours of public testimony and technical presentations on a proposed Circle K convenience store and gas station at 20085 Sheldon Road before voting to return the conditional-use request to committee for further review.

The item under consideration was Resolution 16-2024, introduced by council as a whole, asking the council to grant a conditional-use permit to construct a Circle K on a property currently zoned U-6. The Planning Commission had forwarded the application to council with a condition requiring a remedy for problems raised by an earlier traffic impact study; consultants later submitted an addendum to address those concerns.

Why it matters: Residents who live immediately behind the Dante’s property told council they are worried about increased traffic, noise, nighttime lighting, potential environmental risk from underground fuel systems and a loss of neighborhood character if a 24-hour corporate convenience store replaces the long-running restaurant. Council members expressed concern that traffic changes proposed in the consultant addendum — striping, minor pavement widening and signage to channel traffic to Kolthoff Road — do not fully resolve safety issues at the intersection of Sheldon Road and State Route 237 and that a speed-limit change would require Ohio Department of Transportation approval.

Traffic engineer Judy Bennett of GPD Group described the addendum as a response to earlier questions about how the Sheldon/237 intersection would operate with the site in place. She said the updated plan reassigns lane operations to create two southbound through lanes and would require minor widening, new signage and delineators; she said the proposal does not add new left-turn signal phases. Bennett said the addendum assumes many fueling trips will be “pass-by” trips from drivers already on the road rather than entirely new trip generation and that the July addendum contains the build/no-build matrices requested by staff.

Representatives for the project — attorney Thomas J. Coyne Jr., and Circle K Real Estate Development Manager Brett Lamb — told council they believe the applicant has met the Planning Commission’s conditions and that a conditional-use permit provides the city with enforcement tools and the right to impose conditions and revoke the permit if necessary. Lamb said Circle K and the property owners negotiated directly and that the company identified the corner as a market fit for their brand before recent regional development announcements.

Residents and several council members pressed a series of technical and policy points: whether the site must follow U-3 (gas station) standards rather than U-6 as currently zoned; the dates and assumptions in the traffic analyses (reports referenced included a May memo, a July traffic report and an October addendum); who would pay to relocate light and utility poles; whether on-site signs directing drivers to Kolthoff would be effective (Bennett said such signs would be on private property and not legally binding); and whether ODOT would approve any request to lower the posted speed limit on State Route 237 near the site.

Planning commission conditions captured in testimony and project materials include: addressing the earlier failed traffic impact study (the addendum was submitted to satisfy that condition), relocating dumpsters away from adjacent backyards (the applicant and planning staff described an intent to move them north of the building), and replacing a portion of an existing vinyl fence with masonry block (applicant committed on record to an 8-foot masonry wall where required).

After extended discussion, council voted in favor of a procedural motion to send the item back to committee and bring it to a public caucus/council agenda on March 11, contingent on the law director receiving and reviewing a focused legal question from council about zoning applicability and other outstanding legal clarifications. The motion passed 4-3. Council earlier approved by roll call a motion to open the floor to speakers during the caucus.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to open the microphones for public testimony (mover: Councilman Dufour; second: Councilman Roberts) — Roll call recorded as unanimous yes; outcome: approved.

- Motion to return the Circle K conditional-use item to committee and place it on the March 11 caucus/agenda for further action if requested information is available (mover: Councilman Troyer; second: Councilman Mancini) — Roll call recorded in the transcript and the motion passed 4-3; outcome: approved. (Council recorded votes appear in minutes.)

What’s next: Council asked that the law director receive written questions from council members about the zoning classification (U-6 vs. U-3) and other legal points so she can provide a written opinion before the item returns to council. The Planning Commission must also review any proposed public-street widening or other right-of-way changes before those measures could be implemented. Council members and the mayor said they will request that the city engineer and planning staff continue to work with the applicant on technical details, and that the city will pursue any needed ODOT action to consider a posted speed-limit change.

The discussion made clear the proposal remains contested: residents said they prefer a different use for the site and stressed the proximity of backyards and a school-bus facility; project representatives said the owners had a marketable offer and that Circle K would invest to meet conditions. Council did not approve the conditional-use permit at this meeting and deferred final action pending the legal memo and additional technical work.

Ending: Council convened a follow-up caucus for March 11 to consider the item again if the law department’s written response and any additional technical materials arrive in time. The Planning Commission conditions (traffic remedy, dumpster relocation, masonry screening) and ODOT’s jurisdiction on speed limits remain central dependencies for any final decision.