Bob Evans is Closing - Fast Food Drive Thru is Opening

[Bridget Conant]

Please see the caloric content of Raising Cane's menu items below (specifically the combos, which is how they typically sell most of their menu items). So much for the Mayor's claim in the Lakewood flyer that we all received last month about trying to make Lakewood "America's Healthiest City":

https://raisingcanes.com/sites/default/ ... 20Info.pdf

Thank you, Amy, for posting that link. This fast food entry just blows all of Team Summers talking points.

In addition to creating an unsafe walking area in our “walkable” city, it is most definitely NOT the type of food intake recommended by doctors at the Cleveland Clinic. It’s high carb, high fat, and high sodium. A regular diet with that many calories and sodium virtually guarantees health problems.

Yet Summers will look you right in the eye and proclaim that his efforts regarding development and the hospital are all aimed at making us the “healthiest city in America!”

He’s Lakewood’s own Trump - and he has his own alternate reality.

[Matthew Lee]

Definitely of two minds on this.

On the one hand, Bob Evans definitely was not up to par with other Bob Evans and sat empty most of the time from what I could see. It never became the neighborhood gathering place it thought it would be nor did it ever get the senior crowds from the nearby apartments. It just kind of existed and didn't do much. So why not get a legal business entity in that can raise more tax money for the city and provide food that, apparently, many people enjoy.

On the other hand, does Lakewood really want another fast food restaurant on Detroit? As mentioned, it doesn't quite match up the the "healthy city" image we want to project as a city, or at least have claimed we want to project. Obviously, if they follow the letter of the law there really is nothing the Mayor or city council can do. But I think Lakewood could do better than another fast food place.

Either way, this will be an interesting one to watch play out as I thought the whole "no new drive through" legislation had gone through but must be incorrect.

[Bridget Conant]

Matthew Lee wrote:

Either way, this will be an interesting one to watch play out as I thought the whole "no new drive through" legislation had gone through but must be incorrect.

I admit I’m confused about this, as well. The impression was that no new drive throughs were allowed but Tristan Rader’s Facebook post indicates that the law isn’t in place and that the city has discretion in granting approval.

We shall see.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Matthew Lee wrote:

Either way, this will be an interesting one to watch play out as I thought the whole "no new drive through" legislation had gone through but must be incorrect.

I admit I’m confused about this, as well. The impression was that no new drive throughs were allowed but Tristan Rader’s Facebook post indicates that the law isn’t in place and that the city has discretion in granting approval.

We shall see.

How ironic, Bob Evans arrived with a story a did called, "The Devil Is In The Details." Many people called Bob Evans, to tell them I was comparing them to the devil. Luckily unlike many in Lakewood not only could they read, they did read the story and agreed, as did other restaurants in town. Who also agreed with the article.

One of many points raised in the article was BIG BOX CHAINS can come in with money, force locals and small restaurants and businesses into closing, as they maintain themselves with profits from a much wider area. Then suddenly announce they are closing without any warning or caring about the community. I have generally found that very different from the small locally owned restaurants. That solder on because one, they have no choice, but two, they car about the community the live in.

Now Bob Evans leaves, in slides "Raising Cane" a restaurant that goes against everything civic leaders were preaching, but let's not forget that "Live Well Lakewood's" largest fund raising effort was a hotdog tent in front of DrugMart at various Detroit events. Now Healthy Lakewood has replaced the failed "Live Well Lakewood" and it would seem they have already started to crow about how good this totally unhealthy restaurant will be for Lakewood.

Which brings us back to, "The Devil In The Details." Has the City of Lakewood lied, errrr fooled us again? Telling us there was a "no more drive thru law on the books," but really there was not. City Hall, the administration have become nothing more than a lying machine. Tell the residents anything, then simply go back on promises, rules, laws. All the while they collectively thumb their noses at the courts and the very residents that elected them.

City Hall is morally broken, still, and they are ALL afraid of being honest, accountable and truthful to the residents.

.

[Bill Call]

Which brings us back to, "The Devil In The Details." Has the City of Lakewood lied, errrr fooled us again? Telling us there was a "no more drive thru law on the books," but really there was not. City Hall, the administration have become nothing more than a lying machine. Tell the residents anything, then simply go back on promises, rules, laws. All the while they collectively thumb their noses at the courts and the very residents that elected them.

When McDonalds moved from Sloane to Detroit there was a very public display of concern from members of Council. They were concerned about Detroit Avenue becoming a fast food highway. They bemoaned the congestion caused by long drive thru lanes, the replacement of iconic buildings with fast food architecture and the loss of local business. The easy answer was to ban new drive thrus. No drive thru, no fast food restaurant. What happened? Was that all just Kabuki?

[Jim O'Bryan]

The only drive-thru rules I can find in Lakewood Codified Ordinances...

1129.17   SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS FOR DRIVE -THROUGH FACILITIES.
   A drive -through facility shall be conditionally permitted in C1 Office, C2 Retail, C3 General Business, and PD Planned Development only as an accessory use to permitted or conditionally permitted uses.  No drive -through facility shall be permitted as an accessory use to a sexually oriented business.  The sale or offering for sale of any alcoholic beverage shall not be permitted within a drive -through facility.
(Ord. 43-11.  Passed 1-17-2012.)


1161.03 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES.
(y)   Drive-Through Facility.  In a C1 Office, C2 Retail, C3 General Business or PD Planned Development District, a drive-through facility may be conditionally permitted as an accessory use provided that:
      (1)   Equipment installed for the operation of the drive-through facility including, but not limited to point of service speakers, service windows, menu boards, vacuums, and washing bays shall not be located within fifty (50) feet of the nearest point of a dwelling regardless of the permitted use of the property;
      (2)   Subject to Section 1129.16(d), no drive-through facility shall be operated between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., and no drive-through facility abutting residentially zoned or residentially used property shall be operated between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.;
      (3)   Any drive-through equipment used in the drive-through facility including but not limited to point of sale speakers, vacuums, and windows shall be designed and oriented to minimize the effect on abutting residential properties; sound attenuation walls, landscaping or other materials shall be used, as approved by the Architectural Board of Review where necessary;
      (4)   A traffic impact analysis shall be submitted by the applicant for the streets, signalized intersections and unsignalized intersections in the vicinity of the development to illustrate the pre-development and post-development traffic volumes and delay per vehicle at intersections, which analysis may be waived at the discretion of the Director with the agreement of the City Engineer but may, notwithstanding a waiver, be required by the Commission;
      (5)   Adequate measures will be taken by the applicant to ensure that an acceptable flow of traffic will be maintained;
      (6)   A photometric study shall be required and the lighting design shall be approved by the Architectural Board of Review pursuant to Chapter 1325 of the Building Code, all lights shall be full cutoff fixtures and spotlights shall be projected down; all lighting shall be designed in a manner to minimize the intrusive effect of glare and illumination upon abutting properties, especially residential properties;
      (7)   Landscaping and screening pursuant to Chapter 1141, as approved by the Architectural Board of Review, shall be provided; where such use abuts a residential district or use, said landscaped area shall not be less than ten (10) feet wide.
      (8)   The drive-through stacking lane shall be situated so that any overflow from the stacking lane shall not spill out onto public streets;
      (9)   The drive-through stacking lane shall be clearly delineated from the user’s parking lot and shall have a capacity as stated in Schedule 1143.05 of this Code;
      (10)   Each stacking space shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet in length; stacking requirements shall be measured from the first point of contact with the drive-through facility;
      (11)   No ingress or egress points shall conflict with turning movements of street intersections;
      (12)   Pedestrian crossing of the drive-through lane shall be clearly delineated by crosswalks; and
      (13)   Drive-through banking facilities should also feature a walk-up window or self-service automatic teller.
         (Ord. 43-11.  Passed 1-17-2012.)


.

[Bridget Conant]

Right

So as long as they comply with the regulations, the city will allow the drive through.

[J Hrlec]

Talk about trying to argue / complain about anything (and everything)

BTW none of these comment threads are really "discussions"

[Jim O'Bryan]

Talk about trying to argue / complain about anything (and everything)

BTW none of these comment threads are really "discussions"

JH

Nice to see you add, nothing, per usual.

Right

So as long as they comply with the regulations, the city will allow the drive through.

As it was explained to me this morning, there was never a law against more drive-thrus. It was merely a perception that was allowed to grow, as it allowed everyone to think that was the last one.

It was also pointed out that it is illegal for the City of Lakewood to pass laws making legal businesses illegal. When I asked about tattoo parlors, "sex shops" etc. They mentioned that the City was able to find a way to make parts of the business either so heavily controlled it was not affordable. Like needing a doctor in each tattoo parlor. Or so hard to cut out space that no one ever bothered. They mentioned doing that to a legal business would cost the city millions in litigation costs. Which I suppose is better spent on making dogs illegal and public documents disappear from the public. (my words not theirs)

This means City Council could pass ordinances, and or could enforce ordinances on the books that make it tough for businesses. Two I noticed while reviewing the laws was no drive-thru is allowed to have traffic back up onto public roads. This would make Dunkin Donuts illegal most mornings. As traffic spills out onto Spring Garden and Detroit even causing traffic jams.

The have on the books laws about smells, odors, and smoke which would have put Burger King out of business decades ago.

But I would imagine no new law would stop another drive-thru from happening that is already under construction.

As I have pointed out for years, Lakewood residents are needed for 3 things. Voting twice a year, paying taxes, and sending our kids to schools. From that on we are nothing more than a liability in Lakewood. What was once a tremendous place to raise a family is slowly moving towards Belden Village, a farming village that no is all business and no families.

With that said, property values are up, we have new schools, a great library, and a lot going on.

.

[Matthew Lee]

Talk about trying to argue / complain about anything (and everything)

BTW none of these comment threads are really "discussions"

I guess I am confused about this. These threads, IMHO, definitely are discussions. I generally disagree with a lot of opinions on the Observer Deck but have never felt that it is not a discussion. Why would you say that these are not discussions?

[Mark Kindt]

I agree with Mr. Lee.

We are witnessing the slow transformation of our city -- some good, some bad -- this transformation needs discussion, complaint, and argument to be meaningful.

Otherwise we are just stuck on national social media sites that are moderated and having our comments routinely deleted because they don't fit with the PR program.

(Or being subjected to gibberish and insults on Twitter.)

I am happy to listen to or read any opinion about the future of Lakewood.

The Lakewood of the 21st Century will be distinctly different from that which most of us remember from the last century.

Should economic development at any cost be the driving concept? What other values should be maintained or improved? Is gentrification the goal?

Given the past history of the closure of the hospital and its "gifting" for mixed/use commercial, this debate needs to happen.

[Dan OMalley]

Comments above are correct that the city cannot deny entry to restaurants based on their caloric content or how "local" they're deemed to be. The gatekeepers of which restaurants succeed or fail in Lakewood are the citizens themselves, who do a pretty good job as it is supporting local businesses and ensuring they thrive. It's not lost on me that the likes of Bob Evans and iHop have gone by Lakewood's wayside in recent years, while a dozen or so family-owned diners are enjoying their second, third or fourth generation of success. That trend is truer in Lakewood than in most cities, and we should be proud of it.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Comments above are correct that the city cannot deny entry to restaurants based on their caloric content or how "local" they're deemed to be. The gatekeepers of which restaurants succeed or fail in Lakewood are the citizens themselves, who do a pretty good job as it is supporting local businesses and ensuring they thrive. It's not lost on me that the likes of Bob Evans and iHop have gone by Lakewood's wayside in recent years, while a dozen or so family-owned diners are enjoying their second, third or fourth generation of success. That trend is truer in Lakewood than in most cities, and we should be proud of it.

Councilman O'Malley

Thank you for stopping by. But can't a city regulate based on various criteria? I remember years ago, an uprising over "Dollar Stores" and that Lorain had "outlawed" them. Which seems odd to me as Lorain should be happy for anyone coming in to open a business there. But if memory serves me correctly, it was successful.

What has always bothered me about some desperate need to bring in big box stores and chains is it creates a real hardship on locally owned businesses. While you are correct in saying in the end, we can vote with our dollars, the stress of going up against a chain can be fatal. Bob Evans far outlived the time they could afford to stay there because of deep pockets and bringing in dollars from other locations. The Shore Restaurant to name but one, does not have that luxury.

We have long since reached a saturation point for restaurants in Lakewood. 142 place to buy prepared food in 5 square miles seems like a bit of overkill to me. I know many restaurant owners and business owners. Lakewood businesses run on a very tight bottom line. Even the loss of a few customers a day can spell death over the run of a year.

While we cannot outlaw legal things, except dogs and tattoo parlors for years , certainly we can look harder at traffic impact, neighborhood impact, and overall impact on Lakewood on the whole.

Again, thanks for jumping in.

.

[Bill Call]

This is from the copy of the Lakewood ordinance supplied by Jim O'Bryan:

" (1) Equipment installed for the operation of the drive-through facility including, but not limited to point of service speakers, service windows, menu boards, vacuums, and washing bays shall not be located within fifty (50) feet of the nearest point of a dwelling regardless of the permitted use of the property;"

The ordinance was passed in 2012. The discussion about McDonalds took place in 2011. If Council was interested in limiting or prohibiting the fast food drive thru they would have done it. They can still do it.

50 feet from a dwelling is hardly a limitation; it's more of an invitation. Is the new vision of the City of Lakewood to have Detroit Avenue become Fast Food Boulevard?

Some cities have decided to ban the fast food drive thru:

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/3336 ... -makes-ban