Proposed McDonald’s, A Story of Aldermanic Deception & Suburban Design

Alderman Florida flat out lied. Not an omission of a few details. No sir, a bold faced lie.

I sat next to Alderman Florida on Monday as the proposed McDonald’s at 3708 S. Grand was discussed before the Commercial District Committee of the Dutchtown South Community Corporation. She claimed to not have any graphics to show the group of the proposal, instead she showed site plans for the nearby Southside National Bank project. Yet, in her possession was a site plan for the McDonald’s project. When questioned on the subject she claimed the site plan she had was not the final plan. Digging a deeper hole she said a current site plan did not exist, that nothing had been submitted. We were puzzled at the idea of a public hearing on the zoning of a drive-thru could be held without a site plan. The truth is it can’t.

Florida also tried to play dumb on the details of the proposal, claiming she didn’t know if they were using the full site or not.

Alderman Florida briefly unfolded the site plan and I was able to get a good look at it. The plan uses the full 40,000sf site (approximately 200ft x 200ft), includes new curb cuts on Grand and Winnebego, lots of parking and a drive through. As is typical with these fast food places, the building is set back from both streets with drive lanes between the public sidewalk and building. On the Winnebego side parking, a drive and the drive-thru separate pedestrians from the building.

Florida described the McDonald’s as an “urban-style” building. Let’s see, we have a large site where roughly 5% of the land will be covered in building with the remaining 95% in asphalt. Plus the building is set back from the sidewalk and is only one-story in height. I’m just not seeing anything to make this urban. Oh yes, I forgot, it has red brick. So taking the standard formula painted concrete block McDonald’s and put some red brick on the place and all of a sudden it is urban? Sorry, I don’t think so.

Damn, I hate being lied to.

Right to my face no less!

Tuesday I went to City Hall to obtain a copy of the site plan from the Zoning Department. Oh boy, what a trip. After coming back after lunch the person they sent out to help me couldn’t find the official file among the folders for Thursday’s zoning hearing. He returned with the full sized drawings which looked through in their conference room. I indicated I would like a copy of the site plan. Even though the pages were a large size we agreed the site plan would fit on 11×17 paper. I asked what the cost per page was.

When he returned he said he was unable to give me a copy of the site plan because it was copyrighted work. I argued that it was a matter of public record. He said the drawings were not part of the public record until after a permit has been issued. He also said that is why they were having a hearing, so the public could comment. How can we comment on that which we have not seen? While trying to keep an open mind I couldn’t help be think some sort of conspiracy was behind the absence of the file and the unwillingness to release a copy of the site plan. I insisted he contact the City Counselor. After a long wait he returned and said I’d need to direct all Sunshine Law requests to Peter Mosanyi in the City Counselor’s office. I was familiar with Mosanyi over some requests I had made regarding the Preservation Board. In fact, I had spoken with him less than two hours earlier.

Mosanyi was out when I went down to his office on the 3rd floor. When I returned he was quite friendly and personable, it was nice to finally meet someone I had been talking with over the last month or so. I explained the issue and how timeliness was paramount due to the hearing on Thursday morning. He promised to address my request the next day — today. When I returned home Tuesday I looked up the standards for copyright on “architectural work.” As I expected the standards are reasonably clear:

An original design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings, is subject to copyright protection as an “architectural work” under Section 102 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C., as amended on December 1, 1990. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design but does not include individual standard features or design elements that are functionally required.

The term building means structures that are habitable by humans and intended to be both permanent and stationary, such as houses and office buildings, and other permanent and stationary structures designed for human occupancy, including but not limited to churches, museums, gazebos, and garden pavilions.

Works Excluded

The following works cannot be registered:

• Standard configurations of spaces, and individual standard features, such as windows, doors, and other staple building components, as well as functional elements whose design or placement is dictated by utilitarian concerns.

Nothing about the McDonald’s represents an “original design.” Furthermore, the copyright protection is applicable to building design and not site plans. In short, the information I requested should have been made available to me. I received a phone call around 3pm today from counselor Mosanyi indicating they would make the site plan available but that the staff was in another hearing this afternoon. The hearing is at 8:30am tomorrow morning.

And for the record, the site plan and building elevations were submitted to the Zoning Department in mid-January.

But I want to return to the issue of the proposal.

Alderwoman Florida indicated, “you are not going to get what you want.” She was clearly frustrated as those attending the meeting were not thankful for doing the best she could. Questions about specifics of the McDonald’s were handled in several ways. The first technique was the previously mentioned act of saying she has no detail or graphics. The other was to focus attention on the outstanding SSNB/Melba Theatre project being developed up the street by the Lawrence Group. Yet another was to turn it around and make it out as if opposition to the McDonald’s was opposing the senior housing project on the site of the current McDonald’s. But the best one was the threat of the site remaining vacant for another 7 years if we didn’t take what was being dished out.

Florida continued,

“You can chose to oppose this… Your ability to stop it is quite limited.”

Oh really? This is another from the aldermanic textbook on squashing free thinking among citizens. Convince us we are powerless to stop the inevitable. But she brings hope of us being able to have input into the details. This is the part where we are supposed to bow before her and be thankful. Yet suggestions from others, like moving the building up to the sidewalk, were immediately shot down by Florida. I think the limit to input would have been the shade of red brick.

But wait, there is more!

The Dutchtown residents are still quite upset about Pyramid virtually abandoning the Keystone Place project for which this site is a part. For good reason too. Few houses were built, construction trailers have been sitting around for years and marketing efforts have been non-existent.

Concerned about getting the last of houses built, the group questioned the proximity of a drive-thru fast food establishment next to new housing. Florida’s solution?

An affordable housing buffer.

Yes, you read that correctly. Instead of building more of the same houses we are going to use affordable houses to compensate for the negative of the drive-thru. The theory being people buying the market rate houses (six current listings with a median price of $186k) won’t tolerate being next to McDonald’s but those buying a $115K subsidized townhouse will have to live with it for 3 bedrooms and 2 baths. Why affordable housing? Well, Florida has housing money she wants to spend.

And what about that proposed senior housing project? It is hardly a done deal.

First, a couple of issues. Florida is making a big deal about getting the senior housing project with street-level retail. I agree the project is worth while and appropriate for the corner. But we have no guarantees it will happen. The project requires more land than the McDonald’s site and word on the street is the owner of the commercial property along Chippewa and across the alley doesn’t want to sell.

I can see it now, the community accepts the “as good as we are going to get” argument from Florida and then after the new McDonald’s opens something goes wrong with the senior housing project. I want some serious punishment/mechanism to ensure Pyramid will complete the project. After all, their record around this intersection is not very stellar. A $1,000,000 performance bond comes to mind as a way to make sure something does get built. If not, we might be looking at a shuttered McDonald’s for the next seven years.

Back over on the old Sears site where the McDonald’s is proposed I’ve got some other concerns. For the record I’m a vegetarian and find McDonald’s offensive in general. However, I’m looking beyond those issues to design issues. Namely the drive-thru and parking lot to building ratio. Again, this is not about McDonald’s but about drive-thru fast food.

Through my investment club I own shares in Panera Bread (aka St. Louis Bread Co) and Yum! Brands (Taco Bell, KFC, Pizza Hut, A&W and Long John Silvers), all of which have their own typical suburban fast food building design. None of them are appropriate for this site. None of them!

The Grand area from Gravois to Meramec was part of a redevelopment ordinance passed 10 years ago. It includes:

2. PROPOSED LAND USE OF THE AREA

The proposed land uses for the Area are commercial, residential and institutional uses permitted in Areas designated “H” Area Commercial, “F” Neighborhood Commercial, “B” Two-Family Dwelling, and “A” Single Family Dwelling Districts by the City of St. Louis Zoning Code. Redevelopers contracting with the Land Clearance for Redevelopment

Authority of the City of St. Louis (“LCRA”) to develop property in the Area (hereafter referred to as “Redeveloper”) shall not be permitted to use said property for the following:

pawn shops, adult bookstores, x-rated movie houses, massage parlors or health spas, auto and truck dealers (new or used), storefront churches, pinball arcades, pool halls, secondhand or junk shops, tattoo parlors, truck or other equipment rentals requiring outside storage, blood donor facilities, free standing package liquor stores, check cashing centers, any use (except for financial institutions) that utilizes a sales or service window or facility for customers who are in cars, or restaurants that sell products to customers who are in cars or who consume the sold products in cars parked on the restaurant premises, or sell products through a sales window to customers who are in cars or to pedestrians outside the building for immediate consumption by the customer either on or off the premises, automobile service or stations. [my emphasis]

This standard language reflects a strong desire to minimize drive-thru service. But you might say this is a 10 year old plan and things have changed. You might also note this is not a situation where the city is not the owner seeking proposals. Alright, let’s look at the zoning for the area. This is in the “F” Neighborhood Commercial District:

26.40.015 Purpose.

The purpose of the “F” Neighborhood Commercial District is to establish and preserve those commercial and professional facilities that are especially useful in close proximity to residential areas. The district is designed to provide convenient shopping and servicing establishments for persons residing in the immediate neighborhood to satisfy those basic home and personal shopping and service needs which occur frequently and so require retail and service facilities in relative proximity to places of residence, so long as such uses are compatible with and do not detract from adjacent residential uses. (Ord. 62588 § 5 (part), 1992.)

Sounds good, but our zoning is even older than the Grand redevelopment plan. For the latest guidelines we really should look to the city’s recently adopted Strategic Land Use Plan. In the new land use plan both sides of Grand are in the Neighborhood Commerce Area:

Neighborhood Commerce Areas (NCA)

Areas where the development of new and the rehabilitation of existing commercial uses that primarily serve adjacent neighborhoods should be encouraged. These areas include traditional commercial streets at relatively major intersections and along significant roadways where commercial uses serve multiple neighborhoods or where the development of new commercial uses serving adjacent neighborhoods is intended. Mixed use buildings with commercial at grade and a mix of uses on upper floors are an ideal type within these areas. These areas may include higher density mixed use residential and commercial and may initially include flexibility in design to allow ground floor uses to change over time e.g., ground floor space that can transition from residential to commercial use as the local demand for retail goods and services strengthens in the area.

While not specifically banning suburban sprawl drive-thru restaurants it is clearly setting out a more urban vision. Again, “Mixed use buildings with commercial at grade and a mix of uses on upper floors are an ideal type within these areas.” From the “implementation” section of the land use plan:

Zoning designations are continually problematic in the City, and more often than not new development requires a variance from the existing zoning code. It is anticipated that once this plan is adopted zoning designations will be modified to conform to the plan and “overlay districts” may be developed and adopted that are specific to the character of specific neighborhoods and development areas.

This is so true as our zoning districts, such as the “F” district in which this is actually makes it difficult to build the type of mixed-use projects envisioned by the new land use plans.

Part of my trip to city hall on Tuesday included looking up the deed to the Sears site. It is still owned by Pyramid but I found one interesting detail. A deed restriction:

Grantee, by the acceptance of this Deed, agrees, as a covenant running with the land, that the Property shall not be used for retail sales purposes, except that, notwithstanding the foregoing, a portion of the Property may be used for retail sales purposes provided that in no event shall more than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of floor area in the aggregate on the Property be used for retail sales purposes and in no event shall any single store, business or other commercial occupant on the Property use more than two thousand (2,000) square feet of floor area on the Property for retail sales purposes. This foregoing use restriction shall be binding on the Grantee and the successors and assigns of Grantee forever.

Is prepared food sales considered retail sales? I’m not sure. This is likely a restriction from Sears to ensure another department store would not be built on the site — like they’d care. But, such restrictions are not uncommon. Even with this restriction a multi-use building could be built with up to 15,000 sq ft of retail divided up in smaller spaces that do not exceed 2,000 sq ft in any one store.

Red flags are flying everywhere against this McDonald’s. An alderman willing to lie about having the site plan we all wanted to see at a public meeting. A use incompatible with our newly adopted land use plan. No guarantees we’ll actually get the senior housing project on the current McDonald’s site. And lastly, just plain common sense that we shouldn’t be building sprawl restaurants next to urban buildings (built up to the sidewalk line).

The Conditional Use hearing for this project is 8:30am Thursday 2/16/06 in Room 208 of City Hall. Here is a link to my prior post.

[UPDATE 2/16/06 @ 7:30AM. For those that don’t remember, Alderwoman Florida is the one that sponsored the legislation last fall to make it more difficult for constituents to recall their alderman. See ordinance 66974.]

– Steve