Today the city’s Board of Adjustment upheld the earlier decision to grant a conditional use permit to allow a drive-thru to McDonald’s on the former Sears site.
I’ve got a lot of things I want to say but I’ve pledged not to use that kind of language here. So, I’ll just say this for now:
With development like this, I have serious reservations about the ability of the City of St. Louis to reach its full potential.
– Steve
In 2005 Ald. Tom Bauer was recalled as his constituents were upset over development deals in the 24th Ward. Recently residents began a recall effort against 15th Ward Alderwoman Jennifer Florida, initially over issues related to the proposed McDonald’s relocation but quickly expanding into other issues. KWMU radio is reporting 17th Ward Alderman Joe Roddy is now being targeted for recall over — development issues. The group is originating out of the Forest Park Southeast neighborhood:
That’s where a group wants Joe Roddy out as 17th ward alderman. They cite Roddy’s support for the sale of a patch of Forest Park to Barnes-Jewish hospital as one reason for the recall effort.
But they also say some residents have been upset for years with his support for Forest West Properties, a company owned by Barnes-Jewish hospital, which owns a number of vacant buildings in the neighborhood.
Forest West Properties is buying large numbers of parcels in Forest Park Southeast and seeking demolition of many existing structures, a good many of which could make excellent rehab candidates.
Unlike Florida, Roddy was challenged in the March 2005 primary election. Roddy received 966 votes (63%) to challenger Rodney Burchfield’s 577 votes (37%).
The piece of Forest Park in question had been a part of the same ward as the main section of Forest Park until the last redistricting (2002) when it became part of Joe Roddy’s ward. I think this plan has been cooking for longer than a year — that it would be easier to argue this section of Forest Park was separate if it was indeed in a separate political ward than the main park.
I fully support the recall effort of Joe Roddy. And I’m guessing a good many people out there are tired with the same old status quo from the likes of Bauer, Florida and Roddy. Who’s next? The list of bad development projects is longer than the list of Aldermen…
– Steve
The McDonald’s relocation on Grand issue will likely be decided by the Board of Adjustment today. I’ve written so much about this issue to date it is hard to continue but I am sure many of you are tired of reading about it. Again, it will soon be over (barring any lawsuit depending upon the Board of Adjustment’s decision).
Here is the short summary to get you caught up if you are just joining us. The McDonald’s located on the corner of Grand & Chippewa (3737 S. Grand) since 1974 is looking to relocate to the other side of Grand on the site of the old Sears store (@ Winnebego, 3708 S. Grand). This places the McDonald’s in a different neighborhood than where it is currently as well as placing it on a corner with a minor residential street rather than being on a major corner.
Today I want to focus on a few points: Issuance of a variance to the zoning code and the design issues involved.
First the idea of a variance.
Prior court cases have determined in zoning matters “the authority to grant a variance should be exercised sparingly and only under exceptional circumstances.” The City of St. Louis acknowledges this from a 1994 court decision:
Authority to grant variance from zoning requirements should be exercised sparingly and in keeping with spirit of zoning plan and public welfare. Arens v. City of St. Louis, 872 S.W. 2d 631 (1994).
You see, the city has no obligation to grant a property owner a variance from the code. A variance is usually granted in the case of a hardship or that without the variance the property would not be able to be used at all. If the Board of Adjustment were to be “in keeping with the spirit of the zoning plan” they’d look at the redevelopment plan for the area which specifically prohibited drive-thru service windows.
A restaurant asking for a variance to the zoning to allow a drive-thru window is not reason enough to grant their request. The courts have agreed.
The zoning administrator failed to exercise good judgment when originally granting the variance. The “substantial and competent” evidence does not support allowing a drive-thru at this location. Numerous people testified that it would harm the “health, safety and welfare” of the public. Furthermore, the zoning administrator, either knowingly or carelessly, characterized letters from Mayor Slay, State Sen. Coleman and State Rep. Daus as being in support of the project. This was untrue, their letters were strictly in support of a new project on the current location of the McDonald’s (see post). The zoning administrator ignore the original evidence presented on February 19, 2006.
If the Board of Adjustment upholds the variance this afternoon I believe they will be acting politically rather than rendering a sound judgement based on evidence presented. We can look at the “F” Neighborhood Commercial District zoning (see code) to see what the spirit of the code truly is:
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.)
variance
Clearly, this zoning district is not intended to be a regional auto-centric area but instead a draw for the “immediate neighborhood.” Well, the immediate neighborhood, Gravois Park, doesn’t need or desire a drive-thru restaurant.
Before you tell me these people bought next to a commercial district and they should expect this sort of thing please consider the following, the “F” Neighborhood Commercial District permits many uses:
A. Any use permitted in the “E” Multiple-Family Dwelling District;
B. Art galleries and studios;
C. Bakery Shop;
D. Barber and beauty shops;
E. Bed and breakfast guesthouse, subject to the provisions of Chapter (B.B. 355);
F. Bed and breakfast homestay, subject to the provisions of Chapter (B.B. 355);
G. Bed and breakfast inn, subject to the provisions of Chapter (B.B. 355);
H. Bookstores;
I. Butchershops;
J. Computer stores;
K. Drug stores;
L. Dry cleaning stations (not having on-site processing);
M. Financial institutions;
N. Florists;
O. General offices;
P. Grocery and other retail stores;
Q. Hardware stores;
R. Professional offices;
S. Shoe repair shops;
T. Video and record stores;
U. Mixed uses which include any of the permitted residential and commercial uses;
So while it is reasonable for the residents of Gravois Park to expect any or all of the above uses in the commercial zoning area along Grand, you’ll note a restaurant is not one of them. In fact, in the “F” Commercial District opening any restaurant requires a variance. In this case McDonald’s is requesting two variances — a restaurant and a drive-thru service window.
This is not about being next to a commercial district. For example, I’m sure many of the residents would love to see an urban storefront building on the site in question with an art gallery, hardware store, a florist and bakery — all uses that do not require any variance. Furthermore, I believe most would welcome a restaurant of any type so long as it does not have drive-thru service & excessive parking which comes with noise, trash and light pollution (from parking lot lights).
Also of note are the other uses that require a variance in the “F” Neighborhood Commercial District: bars and taverns, liquor stores, parking lots, private clubs or lodges, theaters and gas stations. I guess we are supposed to be thankful a liquor store didn’t want to relocate to the old Sears site.
Variances from zoning are a necessary evil. Sometimes the letter of the code is too restrictive to a property owner and it is reasonable to grand them a variance so as not to create a situation of hardship. The lot in question is roughly 40,000sf (200ft x 200ft) — not granting a variance for a drive-thru window will not render this vacant land unusable.
Proponents of the project; Ald. Jennifer Florida, Pyramid Construction and McDonald’s; have all argued the McDonald’s will close if they are not allowed to relocate from their current site to this site. They say, they cannot possibly reconstruct a McDonald’s on the current site. This is simply untrue, and I’ve proven as much.
If you care to review the various drawings you should probably start with McDonald’s original proposal. Then you can take a look at their revised proposal prepared for today’s hearing. They had indicated at the last year, through Ald. Jennifer Florida, the revised design would comply with what is considered one of the best guides to integrating drive-thru facilities in urban areas, The Toronto Urban Design Guidelines (large file).
Sadly what they have proposed represents only a minor attempt to satisfy concerns about urban design — they basically moved the building close to one of two streets and made a few other improvements. However, this revised design fails miserably compared to the standards. For a point by point analysis of the revised design vs. the Toronto standards click here.
Perhaps you say it can’t be done. Well, a local licensed architect was kind enough to prepare a couple of examples of placing the new standard McDonald’s building on the site in a more urban fashion more closely following the Toronto standards. See Alternate #1 and Alternate #2. Both are similar with parking toward the back while #1 has a second building facing Grand. You may think that is a long way to walk from the parking to the McDonald’s but in reality those arriving by car will most likely use the drive-thru. By eliminating both curb cuts on Grand this leaves on-street parking intact and reduces conflicts with traffic exiting the site as well as Winnebego.
But what about their current site? Again, I believe they can rebuild on the current site. Yes, it will require a retaining wall to create a more level site but I don’t think they can argue financial hardship. Click here to see the standard McDonald’s building sited on their existing location in an urban fashion. This location even permits them the ability to construct the new building while the current restaurant remains open.
And if McDonald’s choses to rebuild on their current site then Pyramid could build senior housing on the old Sears site, see concept.
The Board of Adjustment will once again take up this issue at 1:30pm today in Room 208 of City Hall. I hope they do the right thing and follow the spirit of the code and deny the variance (grant the appeal). They should see the overwhelming public opposition, the substantial evidence questioning the health, safety and welfare of the public as well as numerous alternative solutions.
– Steve
The increasingly active group known as the Downtown Dutchtown Business Association have come up with a very interesting contest — a 24 hour photo competition:
The contest is designed to promote a positive image of Downtown Dutchtown, generate civic pride and bring awareness of our neighborhood to the St. Louis community. Winners from every hour of the day, plus the top three overall winners, will be, published in a special book, recognized on DT2stl.org in a digital album and displayed in an exhibit after the event. There is no need to pre-register and the contest is open to all.
IMPORTANT NOTE:While you may submit photos in black & white or color, all photos will be published in black & white.
The “downtown” Dutchtown area is primarily concentrated at Meramec & Virginia but the contest rules allow for a broader area: Chippewa to Bates and Broadway to Grand. For all the details visit the Downtown Dutchtown website. The website includes a photo release form if you have people in your images.
I can’t wait to see some of the images as Dutchtown has some great architecture and people. I can imagine Dutchtown resident and fellow STL Syndicate blogger Tom Lampe will have some excellent entries.
– Steve
In late April a large condo project under construction on South Grand was destroyed by fire, most likely the work of an arsonist (story on KSDK). Most of the reaction was the same. But, it was bound to be said by someone:
Condos on south grand destroyed by arsonist, asshole developers, hipsters and yuppies delayed in their quest to gentrify the area.
I caught this in the paper the other day. I don’t know much about the housing situation in the South Grand but I do know the area is becoming gentrified. It looks like someone got sick of all of the hipsters and empty nesters moving in to these $200,000-$300,000 condos and jacking up the property tax. Good for them.
The above is from a Charlie Decker at the St. Louis Indy Media Center (see post & comments). Where do I begin? I guess arson is as good of place as any. Arson is never justified! People’s property is damaged or destroyed (adjacent occupied homes caught on fire) and firefighter’s lives are placed at high risk. No way can the means justify the ends. I’m saddened that some in our society fail to see this and would instead say, “good for them.”
Gentrification is a really difficult issue. How is it defined and how is it applied? One dictionary said to “improve to middle-class taste.” Well, that can be a scary thought because most middle-class Americans like suburbia. I’ve argued before and I will say it again, we need to be continually mindful of affordable housing options throughout our city. But we must improve our housing stock and we must have a diverse population, including based on income. With this we will have change, some good and some bad.
St. Louis is an empty place. We’ve got roughly 350K people within our limits. Another 100K would fit pretty easy. Even a total of 600K would be feasible if we planned for such a density. Adding more residents will change the landscape. Retail stores will differ to meet the needs of the residents. Frankly, I don’t want to live in a poor neighborhood anymore than I do a wealthy neighborhood. I want to live in a highly mixed neighborhood with people from all backgrounds. To a degree I have that here with some low-income rentals adjacent to me and a neighbor a bit further down in the same block driving a new Mercedes that cost more than my house. This is good, we need people.
Property taxes, this is the biggest misconception. Yes, new construction and fancy rehabs increase the value of adjacent properties but the current situation places the tax burden on too few people. Increasing the number of taxable properties will spread the tax burden to more people. More people funding our local government can only help the situation.
Property taxes will rise if we don’t bring in more residents. The poor struggling to pay their property taxes will find that even if their home value remains level or drops the rate will need to rise, as allowed by state law, to cover the cost of governance. I’ll stick with more people sharing the costs as being better for everyone, including the poor.
Last night two additional projects under construction, both in Lafayette Square, burned (story). I seriously hope the above mentality is not responsible for such actions.
– Steve