Will Whole Foods be building or remodeling in Lakewood?

A couple of thoughts on Whole Foods' plans for the old Minyard's location, which I've seen but wasn't allowed to photograph or copy. I can't say that I completely agree with Whole Foods' strategy here, which I would guess is following the old "the fewer people who get a chance to weigh in on our design, the less headaches we'll have" philosophy. They have an excellent site layout that breaks up the massive parking lot in a way that Minyard's did not, and the proposed landscaping (while just generally sketched out) looks to significantly improve the frontages on Richmond and Gaston while also providing a much better facade facing Abrams.

As for the architecture, you can read fellow blogger Norm Alston's post here if you want an architect's analysis of the same building facade drawings that I saw. From a layman's standpoint, I don't buy Whole Foods' contention that the building reflects the neighborhood's architecture, but I can't say it doesn't fit in, either. I asked no less than three Whole Foods reps which other store the proposed Lakewood one most resembles; all declined to specify one. So I'll go out on a limb here: Check out the Preston/Forest Whole Foods (we'll get some pictures posted here later this week). Even though it's part of a strip center, the feel that I get from looking at the outside of that one is about the same feeling I have looking at the drawings for this one. Hey, it's a big building being constructed by a national company; it's going to have a certain amount of aluminum and glass, just because.

And one more important comment before you wade into the rest of this post: I am not a disinterested observer. I live close enough to the building site that my property value could be affected. The way Minyard's was configured didn't hurt our home value, but the proposed Whole Foods design could boost it a bit, since my neighbors and I benefit from the way the building looks from the Richmond and Gaston views. I'm trying to be impartial here, but just be aware of where I'm coming from.

So off we go...

1) If you've been following this deal, you know Whole Foods is requesting a setback variance from PD 281, which has governed development in the Lakewood area (development flanking Abrams Parkway from Junius to Goliad) since 1988. There are 41 pages in the special purpose district document, and for a layman, it's a pretty dense read. But here's a link to the PD document if you want to give it a whack (note that you'll have to download the pdf if you want to read the PD at this link).

2) Distilling the whole thing down to a simple but controversial issue (for some), here it is: Existing zoning in the PD doesn't allow a setback from Abrams greater than 15 feet from the front property line, or 25 feet from the projected street curb. Give or take, that's roughly about how far the Minyard's building is from Abrams now. But Whole Foods is proposing to move the building about half-way across the lot from Abrams, with the minimal setback on Richmond and Gaston instead of Abrams. The problem: The PD was designed primarily to govern development along Abrams and, from what I can tell, generally anticipated dealing with smaller (2,000-3,000-4,000 SF buildings or so) lots and construction; the PD didn't necessarily anticipate handling a Whole Foods-type project, which will be 40,000-SF-plus.

3) The PD worked well with the Wachovia Bank building up the street; requiring the bank to snug its building up to Abrams within the required 15/25 foot setback makes sense, because pushing the parking from the front street to the back improves the appearance of the building from the street and generally makes it conform (much more than Wachovia ever intended to on its own) with the Comerica/Ellen Terry retail strip across Richmond and the general feel of the Lakewood Shopping Center further south.

4) Since the PD requires a developer to convene a meeting of representatives from each of a number of neighborhood homeowner's associations to review plans/variance requests, the PD gives neighbors a huge say in neighborhood development, since any development variance from the PD must be approved by the City Plan Commission (volunteer appointees by city council reps who generally live in the neighborhood they're representing) and the City Council (people like Sheffie Kadane and Angela Hunt, who live around here just like the rest of us). If a developer can't satisfy the neighborhood representatives identified in the PD, you can bet they're going to complain about the project to their City Plan Commission and Council reps, and you can bet those people will think twice before approving a PD variance and telling their neighbors to stuff it.

5) Whole Foods is in the process of convening the neighborhood group right now, and I can tell you one thing for sure: They are not going to agree at first. Some don't mind Whole Foods' request to situate the new building farther from Abrams, while others are hell-bent on making sure that the grocer follows the PD. Perhaps the neighborhood group will be able to arrive at a compromise that they can all accept and that Whole Foods will still want to build; then again, perhaps not. If you've followed requests for development variances in this neighborhood over the years, you know that more than a few qualified people with interesting projects have wound up riddled with bullets and back-pedaling out of here.

6) If Whole Foods can't come up with a plan the neighborhood reps can agree on, the grocer is likely to take the often-fatal step of seeking approval for the variance from the Plan Commission, which will put commissioners Neil Emmons and Bob Weiss on the spot since the overall Plan Commission vote will likely follow their lead (that's how it works, with the commissioner in the affected area often able to veto a deal he or she doesn't like). Failure to obtain Plan Commission approval would force Whole Foods to follow the PD or appeal to the Council to override the Plan Commission, then putting Sheffie and Angela on the hot seat (again at the Council level, individual councilmen representing the area that is home to the proposed development have an unwritten but virtual veto authority over projects they don't like). So those four people, failing an amicable meeting of the minds among neighborhood reps, will make the call.

7) I believe the whole thing will come down to this: Either Whole Foods builds essentially the brand-new building that it is proposing or it winds up remodeling or refurbishing the existing Minyard's building, which also doesn't completely conform with the PD but remains grandfathered in. I don't believe there's going to be much of a third option, since Whole Foods — as primarily a grocery store as opposed to a developer — doesn't want to vary its building plans for one store here in Lakewood so much that it can't run the store with the same efficiency and general plan that it runs its other stores nationwide.

8) One potential side benefit of this deal for every other retailer/shop in the Lakewood Shopping Center area: The connection from the Lakewood neighborhood east of Abrams could actually be made remarkably better if Whole Foods and the neighborhood reps focus on developing Richmond as a real pedestrian environment. Right now, other than a few brave souls on foot or bike, the rest of us need a car to get from home to the Minyard's site or other Lakewood Shopping Center stores. Gaston is a scary street to walk along (believe me, I know), and Richmond just north of the Minyard's building isn't much better. Whole Foods' plans envision Richmond as a pedestrian/bicycle environment; it looks great on paper, but I think this is where having Whole Foods execs from Austin driving the deal is hurting us here in the neighborhood. If neighborhood reps, Whole Foods and the city put their heads together, they can turn Richmond into something we really need here: a veritable gateway from the neighborhood to the entire shopping area. All it will take is some planning and perhaps a few inexpensive traffic changes prior to cutting Whole Foods loose with their construction plans, whatever they turn out to be. But if there's no focus on that critical link from neighborhood to shopping center prior to making the Whole Foods decision — if there isn't a significant effort to make Richmond easier to traverse by foot or bike — it will never happen. Taking control of this issue, even more than the setback scuffle, will have a critical impact on the neighborhood's future development as either a new pedestrian mecca or continuing along the "you need a car to get around" path.

So there you have it: A longwinded explanation of what we know, what we don't know, and what we can expect to play out during the next 60 days, when this deal will likely be resolved one way or another.

Some have suggested Whole Foods will ditch the entire deal if they don't get their way with the proposed site plan; I don't think that will happen. The existing Minyard's building is still about twice as large as the Greenville store, so simply updating that building puts Whole Foods in a better spot than it is now.

But Whole Foods has put forth plans for a striking new building with amenities that will set a good tone for future development in and around Lakewood, and if we shoot it down here and now, we'll definitely be making it clear to future developers that even though we welcome them to the neighborhood, they'd better not try to do anything that is too far afield from what's already here.

Comments

[Michael Davis-Dallas Progress]

Interesting stuff. As a plan commissioner, I look forward to hearing this case which I'm sure will bring some spirited debate. On the other hand, it's great for the neighborhood either way it goes. As a customer of multiple whole foods including the one on Greenville, I can say that the newer Whole Foods are definitely a step up.

I'm glad you said that the overall plan commission will "likely follow their lead" instead of pushing the idea that we always vote in lockstep with other commissioners in their districts. If people see the amount of time we spend on cases week in and week out, they'd know otherwise. Bob Weiss is a great asset to our commission.

Just a hint on the aspect of "following someone's lead" It happens sometimes. When it does, it's usually because the commissioner has spent a lot of time in their district on an issue. However, we have a ton a 9-6 and 8-7 votes on many issues.

Again, a great post!

[jnw32]

Oh my, that is depressing. I bet if you polled residents of the surrounding neighborhoods, 90 percent would agree to Whole Food's site plan, and ask that they get started on it yesterday. How is it that the other 10 percent can hold this up so much, with I fear the very real possibility of killing it? All I know is that if the Whole Foods gets built it will be great for the neighborhoods, if it doesn't, it will be very bad.

[Kyle Rains]

That PD was throughly discussed and vetted back in the 80s and the whole area had to come to a concensus. I was one of those on the less restrictive side and I can tell you I had a few people angry with me. And all I wanted was a 2-3-4-5-6 story gradient limit instead of a one-story limit - my reasoning being we needed critical mass for improvements to the shopping center - which was unsure back then.

I think the points you made about Richmond are on target. But what really is the reason Whole Foods can't move the thing closer to the Abrams streetscape instead of behind a sea of parking?

And I still like the roof restaurant idea, that would be a great view..

[Norman Alston]

There has been over the years a concerted effort by concerned neighborhood residents to develop and implement a vision for this area that provides for improvement not only to the Minyards site, but the neighborhood as a whole. That vision is embodied within PD 281. Meetings were held and a consultant paid for to develop this vision. PD 281 is Home Grown, not something handed down from outsiders.

It focuses on how development occurs along Abrams (Not Richmond. Sorry Rick). I was not part of this effort but I personally think it is both appropriate for the kind of neighborhood we have and reasonable to expect it to be followed. It's a good idea if we'll just show enough spine to do it. Not to mention treating other neighbors fairly who have already invested in our neighborhood and have willingly followed the PD. I think we should support the PD and the folks who did the heavy lifting to bring it to us. It seems the least those of us previously on the sidelines and benefiting from the effort can do.

I would also encourage my neighbors to not succumb to the argument that "It may not conform, but it's better than we have now." That's the easiest cop-out out there is and could be used to water down every zoning ordinance and building code on the books. Let's not.

[Rick Wamre]

Whole Foods assumed a long-term lease for the entire property from Minyard's, but the property is really two separate parcels owned by two separate owners. The current Whole Foods design appears to abut the north property line of the southern parcel; Whole Foods can't move its building much or any farther south without encroaching on that parcel and probably being forced to negotiate a new lease agreement; I have no knowledge about that, but presumably they've considered that option. Failing that, Whole Foods could probably move the existing building more toward the middle of the entire site, stay clear of the southern parcel's property line, and wind up with parking on the Abrams and Gaston sides of the building. What I heard the Whole Foods people say at the meeting I attended is that configuration brings their delivery semis across the parking lot where grocery patrons are parking, so they didn't like that option. And, frankly, who would want to sit on a second-floor patio overlooking a parking lot as opposed to overlooking the country club?

[Mark]

I disagree with the conclusion that they won't ditch the idea if they get significant opposition. They are building a big new store near NorthPark, they may decide that enough of us will make that drive to close Greenville and skip Lakewood altogether. I think that is a genuine possibility.

Let's get it built. It really isn't a question of this or the second option. There isn't a second option. It's an excellent retailer with an excellent reputation or an empty storefront. We will regret it if this slips by.

[Kyle Rains]

Hey the roof deck would be overlooking the downtown skyline, Lakewood Theater, etc -- not really the parking lot! Maybe they could have two venues...

[jnw32]

I respect all the work that was done for the PD, and am sure that it has been good for the neighborhoods. But, that seems to have been done in the 80s. I was still in high school. I have lived in the neighborhoods for close to 15 years, but even then that means I have had no input in the PD. To me, the PD was handed down by outsiders, as I had nothing to do with it and now it may be used to kill a very important (and to my mind very good) development for the neighborhoods. It seems to me that the PD should periodically come up for renewal or amendment as the needs (and residents) of the neighborhoods change.

[Robert]

Kudos to RW for full-disclosure of his residency.

What gets built will be with us for generations. It is imperative that the WF and the community get it right.

With regard to architectural details, I leave that to others more qualified on aesthetics of that sort.

What is important is that the building be sited in a manner that embraces the Lakewood retailing experience which is unique to Lakewood. Another big-box retail store, surrounded by an expanse of parking will not be a desirable contribution to the neighborhood, but will look more like Mockingbird at Abrams, than Lakewood.

Every effort should be made by WF to site the building along the Abrams frontage in a manner that is reflective of the street-level retail character that defines Lakewood. Renegotiating the under-lying ground lease would give WF the flexibility to re-design a different building footprint that embraces the intent of the PD.

The two-parcel ownership issue is a red herring. I haven’t heard any substantial comments from either Janet Dines Meridith (owner) or WF that reasonable efforts were made to accommodate a building footprint that conforms to the PD. For all we know JDM might be receptive to changes that benefit the community. Rather, WF is using the restrictions of the current ground lease to push a proposal that requires a zoning change, contrary to the PD. Every effort should be made by WF to properly site the building along Abrams, including re-negotiating the terms of their ground lease.

I echo the sentiments of N. Alston, not to panic into submission. I suspect that the economics of the underlying lease deal are very favorable to WF and that they are chomping-at-the bit to build in Lakewood. Compared to other new stores, which have hefty land acquisition costs, the Minyard’s site probably looks inexpensive, and the ground lease rent may be extremely low by today’s standards.

[Bill Kennedy]

Rick... Please take another look here at the site plan:
http://lakewood-now.net/view/article/2131?page=4

It does not appear that there's any way to relocate the building as proposed -- south or west. The agreement with the southern parcel owner, Janet Dines Meridith, allows WF to use that southern section only for parking. Any movement of the building would appear to contravene that.

That can only mean this can go one of 3 ways:
1) Time and money is spent getting the PD amended to accomodate WF as is
2) Time and money is spent to amend the WF building plan to echo the PD and stay out of the southern lot.
3) Time and money is spent to renegotiate the WF-JDM contract to allow the structure to cover a portion of the parking lot, therefore further amending their overall site plan.

I'm glad I don't have to bet on which one has the best odds of success. All involve time and money.