Appeal on Variance for Drive-Thru… Tabled.
After sitting through a four hour long meeting we are not any closer to an answer on residents’ appeal of the variance for a McDonald’s Drive-Thru.
The Board of Adjustment, based on their questions, was not impressed with the Florida/Pyramid/McDonald’s proposal. It seems this group is also caving from pressure for more urban design in the area.
Between testimony Jennifer Florida approached me indicating they were willing to build the building up to the street rather than set back as designed. While it helps it does not mitigate all the other valid concerns about noise, trash and traffic.
The Board of Adjustment will likely reopen the hearing after Pyramid/McDonald’s has submitted a new site plan showing the layout with a building up to the street. I think Florida indicated they’d build to the street in the hopes the Board of Adjustment would deny the appeal. This would leave room for them to say the plans that were approved were not up to the street.
If the city is going to continue to ignore sound planning by allowing a drive-thru at this location I’d rather it be built up to the street. But I want this to be perfectly clear, I believe the various fast food establishments in the area are undermining the true potential of the area. If the McDonald’s closed in October as Florida suggests would happen, I think that in the long term we’d be better off.
– Steve
But the McDonalds will solve crime and create home ownership. Who wouldn’t want one? Other neighborhoods have been revitalized by McDonalds.
I would recommend that Florida choose her words much better next time.
I was SO impressed with the people who turned out for the hearing! City Hall Room 208 is an intimidating situation to be put in. It is really amazing what the average citizen can accomplish in the face of well funded business and political interests. Participating in this meeting taught me it is vitally important that we ALL take the time to hold our elected officials accountable for the decisions they make – not just in the voting booth, but EVERY DAY!
When I was working for Pyramid in 2000, I helped put together the pretty pictures and site plans used to sell Keystone Place to the current homeowners. I know for a fact that they were sold a bill of goods that promised a street full of similar single-family homes, not a McDonald’s drive-thru in their back yards. I truly feel for their plight and hope that the McDonald’s proposal dies on the vine.
The rhetoric about the proposed McDonald’s being a benefit to the adjacent homes is disingenuous at best and outright lies at worst. How they say it with a straight face is beyond me. If Alderwoman Florida actually believes what she says (I’m not positive anyone could actually think that a fast food drive-thru is truly beneficial to the general health and welfare), perhaps she would be willing to purchase one of the for-sale Keystone Place homes from an owner who doesn’t agree… somehow I doubt it.
I hope that the Board of Adjustment is able to see past the political pandering and come down on the side of forward-thinking urban design.
With the Board item tabled, now is the time to STEP UP the pressure on our local representatives and Board members. You can bet that Pyramid and Proctor have already started discussing strategy for getting around this “hurdle”. My best guess is that they will come back with a “new” design that addresses some of the concerns with the physical appearance of the building – just enough to create political cover for the politicians and Board of Adjustment members to say they influenced the design.
Let’s not let them get off easy!
I was very impressed with the opening statement that Dale made.
I am baffled that some of us are getting tripped up over the design of the development. Regardless of what it looks like, it’s bad for the area.
McDonalds should just move down to the Burger King site and call it done. Pyramid can build its useless senior housing and the Sears site can await a better proposal.
We should have another protest, this time at City Hall.
I don’t care if the building is pushed up to the street or not. The fact that it has a drive-thru makes it NON-URBAN! Burgle, burgle…
Steve,
You are fighting the good fight. Keep up the good work.
Jim
For the future, you may wish to get some thoughts from the condo residents in the old Kirkwood Theatre on Kirkwood Road. They live next to a McDonalds that does have a drive-through and is pushed up to the street.
Was the design just pulled up to Grand, or to the corner of Grand and Winnebago? The latter is what I think we should push for. If that’s accomplished, with drive-thru in the rear, I think it’s a victory and can satisfy both the needs of the neighborhood and the right of the property owners/developers to make money. In a perfect world there would be no fast food restaurants on this strip, but I think good design would be a wonderful first step instead of trying to block it outright.
The condos in Kirkwood were completed long after the McDonald’s was built, so the condo buyers could see what they were buying into – the drive-thru wasn’t imposed on them.
A big urban challenge with drive-thru’s is figuring out how not to kill the pedestrians on the public sidewalk when the building is pulled up to the sidewalk (sight lines and all + distracted drivers stuffing their faces). That’s why you see most fast food places pulled back from the street and sidewalk. Plus, it makes it easier for drivers to go around again if they don’t have to pull off the site to do so.
Unfortunately, unless you’re in a truly downtown situation (with a bunch of pedestrians and non-moving traffic), most fast food places aren’t going to build without a drive-thru. It simply generates way too much revenue not to. Look at Rally’s and Ted Drewe’s – they don’t even attempt to have a “dining” room. Even that yuppie bastion, Starbucks, is trying to include drive-thru’s in more of their new stores.
A drive-thru is, by definition, auto-centric. It’s also there because it’s what customers want – in this case, they’re voting with their butts, not their feet. Trying to change behavior, culture and society through zoning restrictions is clumsy, at best. Businesses build only where they think they can turn a profit. The greater the potential profit, the more hoops a business will jump through to get at that piece of the pie.
Unfortunately, South Grand is simply not the strongest retail area around, so the city has limited leverage in trying to convince a retailer with proven methods and a proven track record to think outside their comfort zone. Push them too hard, and they’ll simply choose to invest somewhere else. While the area is starting to come around, it’s still a fragile recovery. Much like Loughborough Commons, the priority, at least from the city’s side, seems more focused on stabilizing the area financially / not losing any more existing businesses, than on promoting good urban design.
You gotta pick your battles. St. Louis Center was supposed to save retail downtown. It was considered to be good design when it was built. History has proven that conclusion to be wrong. The answer du jour is New Urbanism and pushing buildings up to the sidewalk. This only works if a) there’s density and b) people will choose to walk willingly (not under duress) in St. Louis’s weather. Heck, if the old urban reatil corridors still “worked”, you’d see them reviving on their own.
I’m no fan of suburban sprawl, but I’ve also owned my own business. If you don’t give the customer what they want, you don’t stay in business very long. If McDonald’s thought they could make more money by embracing “good” urban design, I’m sure they would be more receptive to the concept. My guess is that they’ve “been there, done that” with less than stellar results, and simply for business reasons want to stick with what they know will work for them and generate a steady revenue stream.
Bottom line, if city and the majority of the residents want a McDonald’s in the area, the odds are good that one will be built, especially as a replacement to a proven location. Realistically, the only way to preserve the existing urban design standards is to just say no to fast-food restaurants. The questions remains, is this a minority or a majority opinion?
[REPLY – Thanks for the comment. Yes, the Kirkwood situation is different because the McDonald’s has been there quite a while and well before condos.
However, I think you are off base why we don’t see drive-thru places up to the street. It is not a concern about seeing pedestrians. These establishments got their start in the auto-centric world of suburbia and they’ve simply been transplanted into the urban world unchanged.
Your additional thoughts and bottom line are off as well. First, consumer demand did not create the suburban sprawl mess we have today. That was the careful work of zoning laws & lenders that have said that is how it will be. We are very fortunate that what happened to this section of Grand did not happen just to the North (Utah to Arsenal) or to places like the Delmar Loop.
The public is demanding more urban design. The popularity of urban living downtown proves this as well as the high use of the Loop & the CWE along streets like Maryland, Euclid & McPherson. The demand is there but the codes and elected officials are actually getting in the way.
We don’t to say no to fast food. We need to say no to drive-thru establishments of any type within probably 90% of the city limits. – SLP]
If the density is built up, commercial growth will follow. In the meantime, why are we sacrificing our chance at smart urban planning with corporate welfare to get a McDonalds, Loughborough Commons, or St. Louis Market Place?
If we build a dense residential core, we won’t need to subsidize businesses to build where they can make money. If we continue to settle for or encourage (or worse, subsidize) commercial enterprises to build auto-oriented monstrocities, it’s pretty certain that urban density won’t flourish. We’ll be back in the 50s and 60s.
The neighborhood does not want a drive-thru! A drive-thru is still a trash-generating, NON-URBAN mess even if the building is pushed up against the street. We don’t care if the current McD’s just goes away. Let them rebuild on their current site, then you can talk about the urban design of that lot. Or, let them use the vacant Burger King down the street.
Help me out here, if a drive thru is not allowed at the proposed site then why would it be allowed at the closed Burger King site? Is it in the same development plan? If the King was grandfathered in, a change of ownership may negate that. If a bi-level lot won’t work for McDonald’s where they are then why would a bi-level lot work at the closed Burger King site? If a drive thru is otherwise ba-had bad at the proposed site then why would it be gooood good two blocks south, it isn’t exactly the burbs. If crime is an issue for the current McDonald’s site I recall a couple of yeas ago a guy crawled thru the drive thru window at the King and tried to rob them, the cops shot him. If traffic is an issue at the proposed site take a look at the King configuration.
The problems with the proposed new McD site are that it conflicts with existing neighborhood ordinances, being part of the Keystone Place development, and is very close to residences behind. It also is a poor choice for development in that area of Grand that still has/could have urban appeal.
The Burger King site isn’t bi-level, as they had the good sense to build a retaining wall and avoid that nonsense.
I think this is a great opportunity to make a compromise. The BK has been there and it’s more isolated from residents than the proposed new site of the McD.
I have to disagree, the current McDonalds is looking for more space, the Burger King site does not provide that and the residents are as close on the west side as they would be at the Grand and Winnebago site. The development plan as I understand it is not only for Keystone Place it extends to Meramec on the south end. I doubt if the residents near the Burger King site would consider it a good compromise, no one was crying when the Burger King closed. Does anyone happen to know why it closed? If you look at the McDonald’s at Chippewa and Hampton it does not seem as offensive as the Chippewa and Grand. Being newer helps but the building is maintained and the staff is pretty good, you are not afraid to touch things. The one in question has been nasty for years as has the one on South Broadway. Years ago there was a consistancy to the McDonalds food, buildings and quality of service, I guess the “home” office or franchise police are not as on the ball.
One fundamental question I think remains unanswered by TPTB is why, if this McDonald’s franchise has been substandard, poorly run, the cause for constant complaints, etc., the franchise owner is being rewarded for that behavior with a brand, spanking new location. It seems counterintuitive. Has anyone put forward a rational explanation? By rational, I mean one other than, “Because he wants a new store.”
[REPLY – The closest answer that we’ve gotten from ‘The Powers That Be’ is what Ald. Florida told Jim Merkel of the Suburban Journals, “Florida also noted that the McDonald’s provides $500,000 worth of jobs and
$250,000 worth of sales tax. If McDonald’s can’t move, the area will lose those sales taxes and jobs, Florida said.” This brings up the question how many jobs and how much tax revenue could we generate if we could attract other businesses to the area that are turned off by the McDonald’s and other type places.
It has been said this francise owner faces closure by McDonald’s corporation if he doesn’t bring his location into compliance with their standards. I’m fine with him leaving but I think they could rebuild on the current site, they just don’t want to. We should not allow him to inflict pain on a new group of residential neighbors simply because he doesn’t feel like building a retaining wall at his current location. – SLP]
The Burger King is one of five closed by the same franchisee – see the St. Louis Business Journal for the article:
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2006/04/10/story2.html
Bottom line, it wasn’t making enough money . . .
The problem with rebuilding on the same site is likely having to close down for ±3 months and to lose revenues and (potentially) customers. Steak and Shake has/is doing this in Kirkwood and on Hampton, however, so it’s not impossible. It’s just easier to build a new store down the street if there’s a site available.
I am no fan of the BK site, but it is better suited for a fast food restaurant than the site at 3708 S. Grand. Yes, I know that residents are right behind it, but they have to know that something will replace BK. I am sure someone is already has their eye on it and is contemplating changing the sign and spray painting the building a differnt color. The commercial properties south of Chippewa on Grand are already severely compromised. I really wouldn’t mind a McD’s being built on the BK site because it’s already a drive-thru restaurant. If you want a big picture redevelopment plan then demand that of your alderman. Our alderman in the 25th ward doesn’t seem to do much, but at least she isn’t building crap.
I thought the reason that McD’s wanted to move was to replace their “antiquated” drive-thru lane. The parking lot is rarely packed, so why have a big lot?
I am still having difficulty with the $250,000 sales tax figure. Is that to mean that they have 3.5 million dollars in sales per year? Somehow I think that’s a lie.
Someone on my neighborhood e-mail list brought up an interesting question to me: Do I have the same problem with the Ted Drewes on South Grand? The Ted Drewes is a small building set in the middle of an asphalt parking lot. It breaks the street edge, and doesn’t appear to be particularly well kept up.
Hmmmmmm. I’m not sure. Certainly the site could be designed in a manner more condusive to a comfortable textbook pedestrian experience. However, I think the way the site is actually occupied on a busy summer evening lends itself to decent interaction between autos and pedestrians. People sit in their cars, mingle throughout the “pedestrian area”, and even spill over into the drive aisles. This forces auto traffic on the site to move particularly slow and pay particular attention.
I would like to see the site and building kept up better, but ultimately, the Ted Drewes is a neighborhood institution in a way that no McDonald’s ever could be. This locally-owned business should be given a partial pass on the auto-centric site planning and the somewhat “campy” disrepair of the building.
^If you saw the house and elaborate entry gates (think Compton Heights) that this Ted Drewes replaced you might think differently.
^^
While I’m not going to attempt to defend the Ted Drewes design or use it as an example of how things should be (it could’ve been much better designed, but those stands have been there longer than most of us), Ted Drewes does something completely different than McDonalds could ever do. While many patrons do get there by car, it is fundamentally a pedestrian experience.
McDonalds is fundamentally an auto-oriented experience. You never leave your car. At Ted Drewes people congregate outside in front of the stand (thus it is set back from the curb, to keep people from falling out into the street). McDonalds is set back from the curb to accomodate parking or other auto-related traffic, which makes it difficult for pedestrians to get to.
Furthermore, Ted Drewes has established itself as a fun family oriented place. It’s not for people who want a cheap impersonal meal and a substandard job. Ted Drewes is a place where people go for family outings, dates, etc. It encourages people to mingle and be in close quarters. Ted Drewes is all about the experience of going to Ted Drewes whereas McDonalds is all about getting in and out as fast as possible. At Ted Drewes it’s no fun to sit in your car, unless in your car means the back of the station wagon with the door open. Ted Drewes, unlike McDonalds, would probably be welcomed by residents because it attracts a completely different clientel. It doesn’t smell of meat and grease or blast residents out with “Would you like fries with that?” Drive-Thru’s are by nature an impersonal experience. If Ted Drewes decided to open up a drive-thru restaurant in the same location I’d oppose it. If they wanted to open one like the one on Chippewa, it would encourage pedestrian activity and likely pull in a walking crowd from the South Grand strip.
The two can’t really be compared. If McDonalds wanted to open a non-drive-thru icecream stand style restaurant with tables outside…. well that’d just be weird… but I’m going to guess the opposition wouldn’t be nearly as strong.