By Harry Gatjens
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts listened to testimony Thursday regarding an application to build a Walgreens and a bank on the Westgate-area property currently occupied by long-time Edmonds bowling alley Robin Hood Lanes. Developer Seven Hills Properties is seeking approval based on the project’s design review, conditional use permit and short subdivision with conditions.
The first 45 minutes of the hearing was a presentation on behalf of the developer’s proposal, outlining the project specifics for the property located at 9801 Edmonds Way and the environmental concerns and actions to be taken to address them. The presentation also covered issues with parking and slope and making the buildings fit within Edmonds’ new greener building requirements.
After the presentation, the hearing was open to public comment.
Prior to the public comment period, Olbrechts explained that relevant issues are about the building plan’s environmental issues and compliance with city codes. While people were welcome to make comments about the importance of the bowling alley, Olbrechts added, they needed to remember that it was not a valid criteria for his decision regarding this application.
A total of 17 people spoke — 15 against and two in favor of the project. Of those speaking in opposition, nine brought up the benefits that the current bowling alley provides for the community, one raised concerns about the slope of the bank behind the buildings. and five said that there was no need for a Walgreens in the Westgate neighborhood, which already has another drug store. There were also concerns expressed about how the development would impact traffic.
Following the public comment period, representatives for the applicant addressed the slope and traffic issues. A geotechnical engineering consultant said that he had studied potential erosion issues caused from the slope and found the risk to be well within required guidelines. A traffic engineer added that he had studied traffic effects even during Edmonds ferry rush hours and found the project to be in compliance. The hearing examiner then asked the traffic engineer if the ferry study took into account summertime ferry usage, which he believed to be higher than at other times. The engineer replied that he had not specifically studied summertime ferry usage but had worked with city staff to make sure their study properly accounted for ferry traffic.
One of the comments made during the hearing was that the bowling alley operator had offered to buy the property from the current owners with an offer to match the Walgreens offer. Mark Wuscher, representing the family owning the property, told My Edmonds News that statement was not correct, adding that the bowling alley operators didn’t make an offer until after an agreement had already been reached with the Walgreens developers.
At the end of the hearing, Olbrechts said that he had several weeks to make a final determination. He also said that he understood the concerns raised by bowling alley supporters. The hearing examiner suggested that development opponents consider working with the city to offer incentives for bowling alley operators so that such operations are more economically feasible, or to partner with the city’s parks and recreation department to develop alternative programs that could offer both the fitness and social benefits that would be lost by the bowling alley’s closure.
Seven Hills Properties is under contract to purchase the bowling alley property at 9801 Edmonds Way, with the deal scheduled to close in six to nine months. The developer proposes to subdivide it into two lots and build an approximately 14,490-square-foot Walgreens with a single drive-through lane and a 3,373 square-foot-bank with three drive-through lanes. Site work will include installation of approximately 19 parking spaces on the newly subdivided property, landscaping and pedestrian access.
Because the proposed drive-through use required a conditional use permit and the scope of work has triggered review under the State Environmental Policy Act, it also required design review by the Architectural Design Board. The Architectural Design Board in turn makes a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, who subsequently holds a public hearing and makes the final decision on the proposal.
Opponents, led by Edmonds resident and avid bowler Teri Terrano, have been circulating petitions and conducted a letter-writing campaign to Walgreens, and also held a “Save the Alley” rally in January.
If this project is approved SR 524 will be turned into what is worst about Hwy 99 and 196th through Lynnwood. Please work to get a more interesting business in this site. We certainly do not need another chain pharmacy or more banks.
Thank you Tracy, you are exactly right. We are allowing a business that makes our city special to be wiped out and replaced with a generic, corporate, national chain that is not needed at that location. What an enormous waste and what a crime. I cannot understand why the owners didn’t continue to talk/negotiate with the bowling alley operator. What an embarrassing legacy to be associated with your family forever.
Dont we already have drug stores near by? Dont we already have a few Walgreens near by? Come on, lets keep with original small businesses in the area.. Seems pretty stupid to put another DRUG store in this area.
I would suggest reviewing the Downtown Economic Enhancement Strategy (Hyett Palma, 1999) 1MB. They address the types of businesses that would enchance Edmonds without changing it’s small-town appeal. Specifically page 23 of the study refering to National Chains. This study was paid for by the city and should be brought out of the archives and reviewed as it has many possitive suggestions that have already been put in place. Teresa would you provide a link to this study.
Here is what I found on the City’s website:https://myedmondsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Hyett_Palma_Study_-_Executive_Summary3.pdf
Does the Westgate neighborhood really need four banks and 3 pharmacies? If Walgreens has to come to the Westgate neighborhood, why couldn’t they have bought the property on the other side of the 76 station/car wash? It’s sitting empty. Perhaps adding a Walgreens and another bank might possibly add a few new jobs, but this could easily be done in the empty lots by the 76 station and provide the same benefit to the Westgate community – if creating new employment was the true aim of the developers.
Robin Hood Lanes could have stayed put and families would still have a place to spend a rainy day.
My boyfriend and I won’t shop at Walgreens. We’ll stick to shopping at Bartells and QFC. We like to shop at Bartell’s for this reason: it’s a local business that was founded by a local pharmacist back in 1890….Bartell’s is an integral part of the NW…Walgreens is a Chicago area business that has moved out here…..Bartell’s is the oldest family owned drug store chain in the entire US…..it’s older than Walgreens by 11 years.
Keep Robin Hood Lanes and build a Walgreens in a neighborhood that needs it.
Thanks Teresa for the link, I’m encouraging those people who have a keen interest in the city’s economic development read the study.