Re: Whole Foods
Someone who is smarter than I–and I’d guess a lot of people could claim that distinction–explain something to me. Because I’m probably just being stupid. The Minyard’s was grandfathered into the Planned Development District, yes? So if Whole Foods hadn’t bought the site, there wouldn’t be a big deal, except people would gripe about the Minyard’s for another 30 years. Now that Whole Foods has given up and decided to refurbish, the store still won’t conform to restrictions on the books, right? The point, I take it, is that retail in that location theoretically should front to Abrams, maintaining the illusion of Lakewood’s “Main Street feel”–a ship that sailed long ago. Whole Foods won’t front to Abrams. I guess I just don’t see what people are fighting against. Again, I’m probably just being stupid.
20 Comments to “Re: Whole Foods”
Leave a Reply
All material copyright © 2008 D Magazine. All rights reserved.
You’re not stupid at all. This is what the agitators do. They surround a clear-cut issue with so much jargon and emotion that it suddenly looks like it’s a complicated matter.
I think you have a pretty good handle on it.
Yes. There are those who wake up and realize that they have not done anything in life, so to make themselves feel ‘relevant’, they embolden to stand in front of any ‘ol bulldozer to pretend that they are in Tianemen Square or something. This makes them feel powerful and significant to stand up to the greater good of the community just so people speak their names. It’s sad when you think about it, that property is really a “gateway” into Lakewood and I can’t think of a better welcome than a properly designed, and community friendly Whole Foods.
That fighting attitude among the long time Lakewood area residents appears to have been around awhile according to this 1982 DMN article: http://www.dougnewby.com/Publi.....Sticks.asp
Can y’all tell me ‘who was fighting against Whole Foods’?
I think one or two people just suggested that they try to follow the PD that was crafted by eight neighborhood groups,the many property owners in the shopping center, city staff, Councilman Holcomb and the city plan commission.
You are apparently referring to all these good citizens who volunteered a couple of years of their lives as ‘agitators’.
WF closed Minyard’s, makes us wait two years then bails on trying to work out anything because one or two people mentioned the PD?
Gimme a break, blame WF not Lakewood lovers.
I agree that WF is not blameless here, however, the refusal of certain people and groups to do anything other than say “no” is ridiculous.
You can’t place all the blame on WF when the opposition view is “conform to the PD or else”
Would you rather have the current ugly building or something a less ugly that didn’t front Abrams? (As Zac notes, the current building doesn’t front Abrams either)
Still sort of playing devil’s advocate, Lakewooder (or anyone): explain to me what would have been the perfect solution, the compromise that solved all of this. I still haven’t heard that, and I’m still trying to wrap my head around all of this.
I think WF’s is fighting an outdated PD existant for two decades - which was hammered out over several years by interested parties including several homeowner groups AND property owners. Even though the PD is after all those years is now irrelavant and ridiculous it is very important that WF stick to the almighty Principle regardless if the sudden change of the property is better for the community or not.
who really gives a crap that it doesn’t face abrams? i mean, really. maybe someone can do something about the huge Wells Fargo sign. Or the car detail shop that charges 50 bucks to wash your car with a sponge.
I hate everybody.
Perhaps y’all should peruse this rather mundane explanation:
http://backtalkeastdallas.type.....start.html
Surprise, we are all not as important as we think!
As someone on the CPC, we had to do a bus tour of this place today (although I already know the area). My understanding is that the old building is grandfathered even though it doesn’t conform to the PD. So it can be renovated and still be in compliance.
I,m pretty sure that “OLD” building was grandfathered in long before Minyards moved in. For those short on memory or new to the area that building was a Safeway grocery store for a long time on the same footprint location on the property that the building sits on right now. Minyards merely added its own facade when Safeway left the metroplex.
It’s my understanding that WF was applying for a zoning change which was causing all the ruckus. Someone tell me why zoning changes are such a bad thing?
JNJ actually there was another Safeway store ‘in front’ of the current building - which was built behind the old building, which was then torn down. Hmm, I’m not sure if that makes sense but it seemed a bit bizarre even back then.
That’s for all the comments. To rephrase, I understand that the grandfather clause (name of new band, btw) allows Whole Foods to do whatever they want with the existing building. So … if that’s the fallback option, and indeed, WF looks as though it has gone ahead with it, why would anyone make a stink about the PD at all? Nothing in that spot will ever front Abrams.
re: Lakewooder
“WF closed Minyard’s, makes us wait two years then bails on trying to work out anything because one or two people mentioned the PD?”
I understand your point and your passion on this issue, but please don’t exaggerate. Minyard’s has only been closed for just over one year.
http://www.pegasusnews.com/new.....heads-can/
Whole Foods originally wanted to tear down the existing structure and construct a larger store on about the same spot. The current PD prohibits that. The PD specifies that any new building must front Abrams, which, of course, makes no sense for a large supermarket because of parking restrictions. I suppose if someone purchased the property and decided to put a handful of smaller stores there instead of one larger one, they could all front Abrams and I’m thinking that’s what those who conceived the PD eventually thought would happen.
Lakewooder check your memory banks. At least 3/4 of the old Safeway is on that footprint. I shopped at that Safeway beggining pre 1970.
Speaking as one of the 16 members of the committee that developed the existing PD, I would have loved to seen the zoning amended for the Whole Foods building. The purpose of the PD was to establish guidelines that would lead to a certain type of environment. They were the means, not the end. Like any arbitrary set of rules, they can’t take in to account every possible scenario 20 years down the road. That’s why you have ways to amend them.
Whole Foods’ proposed design was superior to anything that can be developed on that property under the PD. We’ve lost a once in a generation opportunity, because of a few individuals inability to think outside the box.