This morning’s hearing on the proposed McDonald’s at 3708 S. Grand was interesting to say the least. On one side we had folks from Pyramid, a McDonald’s rep, the McDonald’s franchise owner and Alderman Jennifer Florida. On the other side you me, a number of nearby residents and Alderman Craig Schmid.
Here is a brief summary:
Ald. Florida attempted to put a positive spin on the whole project by calling the proposed McDonald’s “urban-style” and “pedestrian-friendly.” She also said, I kid you not, that the McDonald’s was the “lynchpin for future development occurring” (I thought I was going to lose my breakfast).
The franchise owner, James Procter, said they must close their current location at 8pm each night due to crime in the area but they’d like to have the new place open until 11pm. I guess it never occurred to him that perhaps his poorly lit and dirty establishment might the cause of any crime issues (or perception of crime issues) in the area.
It was stated that the franchise is up for renewal and McDonald’s is requiring them to rebuild, relocate or close. From a citizen perspective I don’t think our urban planning should be decided based on a franchise agreement.
The list of speakers in opposition to the proposal was long. However, the main focus was the conditional use of the drive-thru so I’m not sure how the concerns about trash and such will be taken.
Ald. Craig Schmid has been getting some bad press lately over his ideas around loud speakers and liquor licenses. I’ll leave those subjects for another day. On this issue he broke with the time honored practice known as “aldermanic courtesy” and publicly opposed the McDonald’s proposed supported by Ald. Florida. Go Craig!!!
The part after the meeting was better than the meeting. I watched as residents had words with Ald. Florida (I always like a free show). Myself and others opposing the project are getting organized for the bigger fight on remaining hearings on the project. Look for the campaign to kick off in the near future!
Earlier today I was finally able to get a copy of the site plan for the project. OMG, It is worse than I had expected.
The site plan includes two 30 ft wide curb cuts along Grand and one 30ft curb cut along Winnebego. A total of three curb cuts!!!! Look for traffic nightmares as people are turning in and out of two cuts along Grand plus Winnebego. This many curb cuts in such a short distance create hazards for pedestrians, cyclists and those of us on scooters.
Two “monument” signs. These are the less intrusive type than the tall roadside type. However, at the hearing they indicated only one sign while the drawings indicate two.
47 total parking spaces! The plan shows room for eight cars in the drive-thru lane.
The plan is also interesting in what it does not include. The “F” Neighborhood Commercial District requires a number of things before permitting a conditional use when adjacent to a residential district. One item is:
f. Parking areas shall be screened at all property line with a 10-foot landscaped strip contiguous with or directly across an alley or public or private easement, other than a public street, from any existing residential use or dwelling district. Parking area screens shall consist of a minimum 2-foot high berm and a masonry or wood barrier that is at least 70 percent opaque and not less than 6 feet in height and shall be maintained in good order.
In this case they show 15 parking spaces along the eastern edge of the site which is across an alley from a residential district. But the plan conveniently omits the required 10-foot landscaped strip along the alley. Out front we’ve got another issue:
g. A landscape strip not less than 3 feet in width shall be provided along all public streets and shall contain 2-foot high solid landscaping or a masonry wall not less than 2 feet in height except that these elements shall not be required in approved driveways. Street trees shall be installed in the tree lawn, between the public sidewalk and public street, when the tree lawn has sufficient width, or street trees with gates shall be installed in public sidewalks where the sidewalk has sufficient width and is on an earth base with a minimum of 25 feet between trees not including driveways. A minimum of 15% of the lot area shall be landscaped, including screening areas.
Looks like they might have 3 feet of landscaping at one point out front but barely. No landscaping is indicated on the drawings other than to indicate a few areas as landscaped. Lots of asphalt though!
The building occupies only 10% of the total site. 10%!!! Sorry, you can’t get any more suburban than that!
Ald. Florida said the project was “pedestrian-friendly” yet I see no evidence of such. At no point is a sidewalk provided for pedestrians to walk from the public sidewalk to the entrance of the establishment. If you are coming from the neighborhood to the east your only means of entering the site is through the 30-foot wide in/out drive and then walking through the drive area to the front corner of the building. If you are on Grand and wish to enter the restaurant you have the same situation, you must enter the site through the automobile entrance & exit areas. And if you are in a wheelchair you must wheel about 85 feet as if you are heading toward the drive-thru lane before you get to the one ADA ramp. Yeah right, pedestrian friendly my…
No bicycle parking is indicated either. From the looks of things this does not appear to be any different than a McDonald’s they’d build along a suburban highway exit ramp.
Once I get the document in PDF format I’ll do another post so everyone can see for themselves.
Fast food restaurants, with drive-thru lanes, can fit into an urban streetscape. But, the typical fast food establishment — surrounded by parking — just won’t due anyplace except out in suburbia. 
