Whole Foods update: New design is killed, WF to refurbish old Minyard's building

This just in from Scott Simons, the marketing guy from Whole Foods Austin who is responsible for the Lakewood store progress ... Whole Foods' plan to build a new structure on the old Minyard's site is dead. Instead, Whole Foods is planning to refurbish the existing Minyard's building, with work beginning in a matter of weeks, according to Simons.

In a followup email, Simons indicated that the decision had nothing to do with a meeting of neighborhood representatives Wednesday night, which Simons says Whole Foods was not invited to attend; the reps were meeting with our neighborhood's plan commissioners to discuss Whole Foods' requested changes to the PD governing development along that section of Abrams Road. (For an archive of our complete Whole Foods coverage, click here.)

Simons says this decision "has more to do with the city planning commissioners' reactions to our proposed building plan and the fact that we have been paying rent on the property since we took it over. We simply cannot afford to sit on the property for another six months to a year before we can begin work on the site. It is strictly a business decision."

We'll do some more research and have a further update as soon as possible. In the meantime, here's a copy of the note I originally received from Simons...

Rick,

I have an update for you.

As you know, we've been exploring many options with the former Minyard's
site in Lakewood for some time. As site planning has proceeded, the
private and city restrictions have raised very challenging issues.

Setting out on this project, we acknowledged that we had two viable
options with this location; we could renovate the existing structure and
create a new Whole Foods Market in the existing four walls, or demolish
the current building and construct a new store on the site.

Ultimately, we decided to explore the idea of a new structure, and we
recognized that this would mean navigating the existing restrictions and
asking for neighborhood and city support on a new design that would
serve the neighborhood and allow us to run an efficient store at the
same time.

However, all current indicators, combined with our experience in
building new stores in the past, have led us to believe strongly that we
can expect a very long and complex process to acquire the Planned
Development District amendment we would need to build a new store.

After carefully evaluating our expenses to date along with the City Plan
Commissioners reactions on the design we proposed, we feel that the best
decision is to renovate the existing retail space and move forward with
opening the store in a more timely manner.

Additionally, we have heard from many community members that an
environmentally-sensitive project would be most welcome, and using the
existing structure will allow us to pursue a greener end result for the
store. We will work to make the interior finish-out of the store as
environmentally sound as possible.

This decision will allow us to start work on the site quite soon. We
will work very hard to create an amazing store experience for the
Lakewood area and have it open as soon as possible. We expect work to
begin within a matter of weeks.

Thank you,

Scott Simons, Marketing Team
Whole Foods Market Southwest

Comments

[Robert]

This is a disappointment which is bitter-sweet (imo).

The key phrase in the WF press release is "a new design that would
serve the neighborhood and allow us to run an efficient store at the
same time." The translation is that WF wanted to do a big-box store. They really had no interest in operating a grocery store that was fitted into a building design which was unorthodox and in-contex to the PD and Lakewood reatil character. Additionally, they didn't want to re-negotiiate the ground lease (which dates back to 1982)and give the owner of the southern parcel a chance to reap more income from the ground lease.

In essence, WF was trying to get a new building on-the-cheap at the expense of the Lakewood community.

Re-using the existing minyard store is a better solution than granting a variance to build their new store as proposed. The underlying ground lease expires in December 2029, which is the next date that the community can look forward to changes at the corner of Gaston and Abrams.

Unless WF signficantly upgrades the new store (service and inventory)over the Greenville location, I will still prefer to shop at Central Market for most of my food items.

[Robert]

Also, my research of Dallas County public records reveal no recorded documents evidencing transfer of any realty interests (fee simple, leased fee, or leasehold) in either of the two properties to WF. So, I am wondering how long has WF has been paying rent on the ground lease during the time Minyard's closed their store, making WFs claim of "paying rent on the property since we took it over" dubious. I also suspect that the ground rent payments are substantially below market, and WF considers the transaction a cheap alternative to a land acquistion and new construction. I don't give any credence to their economic arguement to abandont thier proposal.

[Jim]

Disappointing news as it is just another example of the lack of true committment to our community. I was looking forward to WF driving a stake in the ground and taking what is a a natural spot for retail to a new level. So if WF thinks they can meet their goals by putting lipstick on a pig, then good luck because I don't see any reason to change my buying habits when they finally open. It is sad that they did not do their homework before closing on the Minyard's property. Maybe the idea of becoming the neighborhood grocer to a community with economic potential got ahead of prudent and disciplined business practices. If that is the case, then they should just stay put. Either way, my dollars will be spent else where.

[Bill Kennedy]

WOW... I'm "Lost In Translation." I didn't know that there were people out there who divined so much truth, from so little fact.

Too bad this happened.

[Marcie]

I just hope they hurry it up. I kind of wish it was any other grocery store, one that carries brands that I can afford and actually use.

[Ruprecht]

I don't think the current building is any more in keeping with the Lakewood retail character than Whole Foods' proposed re-design. I don't see how the re-design was any more of a "big-box store" than the current building, nor do I see how their proposal cost the Lakewood community anything other than the inconvenience and delay of new construction. The current building makes a dead zone out of the northern 1/3 of the property along Abrams, Prospect and Gaston. While the new design had a parking lot along Abrams, the store itself did a far better job of engaging the Lakewood business district than does the current building.

Also, I like how after criticizing Whole Foods' supposed community-unfriendly, out-of-context, big-box ambitions, you get in your car and drive to an even bigger box ouside of Lakewood!

Personally, I'm happy that Whole Foods is opening sooner, but disappointed that it will be in the current building. I think the re-design would have been better for the character and feel of "downtown" Lakewood.

[Sue Dokue]

The neighborhood associations strike again. It is no wonder that the Lakewood area still looks like Garland-Lite. I am not talking so much about the Lakewood Shopping Center as I am the area around the White Rock YMCA and down Garland Road with all its pawn shops, liquor stores, psychics, billard halls and car repair shops. The Gaston/Garland Rd/East Grand Intersection is a blight and has been a blight for as long as I have lived here, 1989. In an effort to control every bit of development that takes place in and around the Lakewood area we have effectively shut it down to anything more innovative than the building of banks. Does anyone really believe that the old Minyards building is worthy of landmark status? A new and exciting building at that location could have set a spark in the area. I was thinking of buying a townhome within walking distance of the new Whole Foods, thinking that a new energy would emerge as a result of a facelift at that location. Just last year the neighborhood groups along the Garland Road corridor completely shot down what could have been the area's rejuvenation around the lake with a high-rise condo development and my own neighborhood association is holding the church property on Gaston at Loving hostage from moving forward with any development there. What is everyone afraid of around here? We are absolutely squandering the chance to make this area a truly self-contained, self sustaining one. Is anyone else tired of having to go to North Dallas to do most of their shopping? Is anyone else sad that the best view of the waterfalls at the spillway is had from the parking lot of the 7-Eleven?

[David]

I'm at a loss to see how a new WF store, even if characterized as a big box, would not fit into the "Lakewood retail character." I guess the Central Market-shopping Lakewood residents would prefer that the Gaston area remain a viable location for pawn shops, transmission repair shops, and psychics. Couple those with a storage facility, some liqour stores, and vacant pool hall and you have a great long term development plan. I love people who throw out "at the expense of the Lakewood community," but don't add a single substantive fact or circumstance to support the assertion. And the harm is???? And, without wrapping myself in the flag, what's more American than trying to make a new location profitable. Who do you think will invest in the area if they can't profit from their investment? I'm sure there are many businesses that want to line up and open a loss leader for the neighborhood. I just can't think of any.

[JKR]

I think if you read the story you will see that they were more afraid of the CPC than Lakewood homeowners. But WF apparently did not research the zoning on the property, didn't account for the fractured ownership in older communities, and didn't realize that Lakewood is a land like no other OR they thought they could shove all aside and get their way ---

Why is it that Lakewood should not follow its longtime resident Stanley Marcus' credo, 'quest for the best'?

Univerity Park has been much more obdurate with redevelopment of the old Hillcrest Bank property at Snider Plaza, perhaps y'all should heap some blame on them as well.

Of course I am one of the strange people who lamented the loss of Minyard's - not for its stellar selection but for the East Dallas history of the Minyard family and the fact that the store brought all types of people together in one location. That's certainly something you never see in UP.

[KG]

It is a shame to see a good development opportunity shot down by the ultra-conservative people that are afraid of any change. From what I saw of the plans, they were much better than anything that can come from the existing store. Oh well...

[DK]

At the end of the day, after all the discussion of variances and other bureaucracy, we get to keep our same old ugly building.

It looks like Lakewood is trying to be a cheap version of San Francisco.

[JR]

I live on McCommas, but we stopped going to Lakewood 2 years ago. Lakewood is a disgrace.

[jnw32]

Well, at least they weren't totally run off. Could someone explain to me how a redo of the existing Minyard's, which does not conform to the PD, but is grandfathered in, is better than the new site plan proposed by WF? You still don't get the holy grail of a building fronting Abrams, and won't for a long, long time, and probably never, and while you are waiting you get to live with the old building, instead of a new one. And the new one, although not fronting Abrams, would have been better situated on the site than the old one. To my mind, the PD did more harm than good.

[jnw32]

Well, at least they weren't totally run off. Could someone explain to me how a redo of the existing Minyard's, which does not conform to the PD, but is grandfathered in, is better than the new site plan proposed by WF? You still don't get the holy grail of a building fronting Abrams, and won't for a long, long time, and probably never, and while you are waiting you get to live with the old building, instead of a new one. And the new one, although not fronting Abrams, would have been better situated on the site than the old one. To my mind, the PD did more harm than good.

[cesar]

Look at paragraph 5 in their response. We lost a new store because our City Plan Commissioners took an antogonistic tone with this project.

Whole Foods comes out and says it!! Our plan commissioners didn't like their plans. How do you negotiate with that?

Heaven help us if someone wants to rezone something new in Lakewood again.

Thanks for renovating a square box.

[Robert]

JNW32:

You raise a very intersting and possibly sticky point. If the old Minyard building is non-conforming, then WF will be limited to the amount of $$ it can spend to renovate the property. I think the Dallas Codes require any renovations that exceed 50% of the building value, then the building must be conforming. Also, if the use remains in-active for too long of a time frame then the non-conforming use may no longer allowed to continue and must conform.

[Michael Davis-Dallas Progress]

As being a member of the CPC, I beg to differ with one of the commenters. I doubt that the developer was afraid of our commission. We we eager to hear the case, in fact we went on the bus tour this morning to tour the site (which is often done with controversial cases).

[cesar]

Look at what they said. Obviously, the plan commissioners did a poor job of conveying an open mind to their case.

If someone wants to develop in this town and the gatekeepers of the first hearing are telling you "this won't fly", what else are you going to do?

They don't say they were concerned with the plan commission, but specific commissioners.

[Kelly]

Looks like you all missed the point. They aren't going to move in and open up without a facelift, they are just re-using the old walls. Why don't you all relax until the new drawings come out.

If any of you have seen what they did on Preston Road in that old Minyards I doubt you'd have your knickers kicked up.

[ericthegardener]

cesar said:"Look at what they said. Obviously, the plan commissioners did a poor job of conveying an open mind to their case."

Cesar, just because they said it doesn't mean it's true. This could just as easily be a tactic on WF's part to gain leverage.

Look, I live near enough that I plan on shopping there when it opens and I liked their plan for the most part but that doesn't mean that I believe everything that Whole Foods says.

I don't think this story is nearly over yet.

[james]

Thank you Kelly finally a voice of reason on this subject.

[wWw1985]

I moved to Lakewood in 1976 as a kid. We had a local grocery store in Lakewood and it was called Safeway back then. We could afford to shop there! My family continued to shop there even when it changed hands and became Minyards. We shopped there until it closed and my family was sad to see the end of an era! For many years, when we wanted to buy some special gourmet item, we had a Whole Foods nearby!

I don't really care what kind of Whole Foods store ends up at Gaston and Abrams......I don't want a Whole Foods there PERIOD. Even though I may occassionally pick up some special gourmet item there in the future, I sure as heck won't do my routine shopping there no matter what it LOOKS LIKE! I want a normal, reasonably priced grocery store that I can conveniently shop at when I need something! I don't WANT to have to go across town to buy a regualr weekly bill of groceries or pick up something for dinner on my way home from work!

However, since Whole Foods decided to invest in that location, my vote doesn't count. My vote on what kind of store goes in that location (or what it looks like) doesn't count because I did not invest in that location....Whole Foods did!

Even though I disagree with what is going to happen at that location, and I am inconvenienced by not having a normal, neighborhood grocery store, I fail to understand why we are so darned afraid of change! We have turned into control freaks....we stymie business growth, delvelopment and expansion when we try to dictate every nuance of proposed businesses! Our dictatorship will keep us locked in the dark ages of consumer choices if this continues. Lakewood is "retail challenged" and will continue to be so if we don't relinquish some of our "contol issues"!

[Norman Alston]

The charge of "afraid of change" is a convenient cop-out that is completely at odds with the facts. The zoning contained in PD 281 was initiated and developed by local residents who retained professional design and planning help. It was put in place long after the grocery store was built, precisely in anticipation of change. It is specifically an effort to keep coming change from being "Garland-lite" and damaging the neighborhood character that so many of us moved here for in the first place. WF chose to try and circumvent the most fundamental of those design standards.

[Jeff Duffey]

Yet another example of a how a few naysayer antagonists can win over a majority who disagrees with them (or never even knew what was to be). Dallas policy strikes again. I was at the first neighborhood meeting where the new plans were revealed and 2 city planning commissioners spoke out against them at the meeting thus killing the plans before ever giving the community a chance to approve them. I have the proposed building plans and will keep them just so I can show them 30 years from now to those people who want to rennovate the Safeway/Minyard/Whole Foods building.

As a Lakewood resident I can say this is a very sad day for Lakewood and the very reason it has - and never will - live up to its potential.

[sks]

As a Lower Greenville resident, I am much more concerned with the fact that WF has made it impossible to release the old WF space to a grocery store of any kind which leaves us with the inevitable nightclub or pub going in the old spot when they finally decide to abandon the area that has supported them for 20+ years. At least you aren't dealing with that little problem, Lakewood. Also- has anyone thought about the conflict of interest that there might be with Mitch Rasansky, of Dallas City Council owning the old Greenville WF site and maybe he is trying stop WF from building a new big store in Lakewood because he is angry that he is not only losing a very well paying tenant but they also have that stipulation in the lease that makes it very hard to get a good, long term tenant in when they leave. I don't know how much he has to do with city planning but I thought this might be worth noting. The old Minyards is just slightly bigger than the Greenville WF - which sort of negates the reason why they are moving in the first place-to have more space. Also, they just redid the WF on Greenville less than 5 years ago using the existing structure and it looks totally different - except for the shape of course - so I wouldn't worry that they are just going to put a big WF sign and some flowers in front of the old cruddy looking facade with the 1970's fake rock walls still showing- it will be a nice looking store I am sure. Maybe it won't look like the WF/Spa on Preston/Forrest but I for one am okay with that!