Updated July 7 with construction information.
The City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner has approved a conditional use permit for a Walgreens pharmacy and a drive-through bank at 9801 Edmonds Way, paving the way — literally — for the iconic 50-year-old Robin Hood Lanes bowling alley to be torn down.
In his decision, issued last week, Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts approved the subdivision of the site, as proposed by developer Seven Hills Properties, to make way for 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.
Walgreens spokeswoman Natalie Quick said construction is likely to start in winter 2013.
In his ruling, Olbrechts required the developer to meet a list of 21 conditions, ranging from striping of walkways to meeting city height and setback limits to landscaping. You can read Olbrechts’ entire 25-page decision here.
The decision was a blow to project opponents, led by Edmonds resident and avid bowler Teri Terrano, who have been circulating petitions and conducted a letter-writing campaign to Walgreens since the plan was announced in late 2011.
In his decision, Olbrechts noted that the project “has generated substantial public opposition…based almost entirely on the desire to retain the existing bowling alley.” Such opposition is understandable, given that Robin Hood Lanes is the city’s only bowling alley and “has provided needed recreational services to all age groups of the Edmonds community for decades,” he added.
However, state and federal law “strictly prohibit the City from denying the permit application in order to preserve the bowling alley,” Olbrechts said. “The City is constitutionally barred from compelling the Applicant to bear the burden of providing the Edmonds community with a bowling alley.”
At a public hearing before Olbrechts on June 14, 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.
Although this is not unexpected, it is still heartbreaking. I hope the Clute/Wuscher family is at peace with the decision they made and the connection their family and family name will always have with the destruction of Robin Hood Lanes. As so many on this site have said before, Walgreens will not see a dime of my hard earned income. I will continue to shop at and support our neighborhood Bartell Drugs. The loss of the bowling alley to the community, families, and children is a tragedy and a travesty.
Well said, Theresa. This action by Walgreens may be consistent with their corporate strategy, but it has created a public relations nightmare for them. We, too, will continue to shop at Bartell Drugs.
What a huge win for Edmonds. We are going to demolish the only bowling alley in town and build yet another pharmacy (QFC and Bartell Drugs are at the same intersection) and another bank. Way to go Edmonds. Thanks for taking a huge step backwards.
Thank god. I was hoping we would get another bank. I was worried we didn’t have enough of them. Perhaps we could call this place Banklandville instead of Edmonds.
Disappointed but not surprised. Edmonds is definitely “Deadwood” now with one less thing for kids to do. We can now give Lynnwood more of our money at their bowling alley. Oh, wait, they can tour all the banks in Edmonds. My loyalty is to the Edmonds ‘ Bartells….love their new remodel AND their prices.
This is such a shame. Another bank and a Walgreens that no one from Edmonds will shop at. And the irony is that they’re going to save the Robinhood Lanes sign and put a big ‘W’ on it according to the illustration!? Let’s add insult to injury. That actually made me laugh.
Now we can watch the traffic nightmare unfold at an already busy intersection.
James, I couldn’t have said it better myself. ANOTHER bank??? REALLY?? There are so many angles of this plan that are ridiculous, and the whole thing is so very sad. I also agree with the feelings regarding a Walgreen’s; we need that like a hole in the head.
Typical short sighted Edmonds city council. Big business, once again, dictates the small minds for profit. We do NOT need more banks or drug stores. Be creative you fools. We lack parks and open space for societal enjoyment. One more reason this city is a less desireable place to live.
When talking to Walgreens in a letter, I was very clear that Edmonds is a place that looks out for local businesses, like the recent cash mob for Petosa’s. My kids are the third generation to bowl at Robin Hood and I am sad not only for Mike and his crew but for everyone who will lose this local business. It is obvious that they do not care, nor does the owner of the property. In hindsight, maybe the only way to stop a project such as this is to match the offer.
I hope that people don’t use this Walgreens as a sign of protest. There are certainly plenty of them around – the McMalling of America continues and Walgreens is one of the biggest offenders. We will continue to bowl at Robin Hood until the last.
I don’t shop now at Walgreens and will certainly boycott any Edmonds store. Bartell has my business. What an ugly, empty sight we will have when a Walgreens Edmonds store closes due to lack of business.
This completely stinks. I’m glad that 88% of those who spoke against the Walgreens at the hearing got their wish. (Sarcasm) I’ve enjoyed bowling at Robin Hood for years and this is a huge blow to the community. I live in Ballard and can attest that life has gotten worse there without Sunset Bowl. Instead, we got another condo complex.
What’s amazing is that the community doesn’t want the Walgreens, yet the city cites they are “constitutionally barred” from providing community entertainment. Are you also “constitutionally barred” from following the will of the public you serve?
Unfortunately, what makes bowling centers desireable for development is the large footprint of land needed for the lanes, concourses, restaurant/lounge and parking. In the Seattle city limits, back in the day there were approximately 25 bowling centers. Now there are two: Imperial and West Seattle. I’m yet to be convinced this is progress.
Its a sad day for the city of Edmonds…let me rephrase that, its a sad day for the citizens. The city officals however may have received a kick back from this deal. My question still remains unanswered. Why did the family decline the matched offer, matched meaning dollar for dollar from the owner?…that just proves, these greedy kids could careless about the best interest of the community. They’d rather stuff their pockets with corp dollars…oh and receive free Rx for life than do what’s best for the city, community, children..etc.
Again, I blame this on the greedy family and greedy city officals.
Wayne:
I suggest that you get yourself better informed about how our city operates. This ruling did not result from a kick back to any city officials, and it is simply false to “blame this on greedy city officials”. The Hearing Examiner, not a city employee, made this decision; his findings are clearly described in the story above that has started these comments.
I have to agree with Ron. There are no kick backs involved. Also I saw the city council was mentioned. Most if not all did not want to see Robin Hood Lanes close. Leagally there was nothing that could be done to stop it. I don’t think the sign is owned by the property owners so I would hope that it is removed and saved. Walgreens is banking on all the dissatisfaction dying down in a short period of time. Lets hope the city doesn’t run out of money for Yost Pool so the kids have something to do during the summer. What will they do during the cold winter months?
I find it very hard to believe that another chain drug store will benefit Edmonds in any way. Robin Hood Lanes provides community, a gathering place, safe place for kids.
Another faceless drug store chain benefits no one in the community of Edmonds.
Despite this being a private party transaction, does this mean that no one in city government could meet with the family to encourage them to accept the matching offer of the bowling folks? The family would get their asking price and the bowling alley would remain for all to enjoy. Just wondering…
Kathy:
My understanding is that a purchase and sale agreement has already been entered into with Walgreens, and that it is consumated when the building permit is issued. I could be wrong.
It’s just so sad…when it might have ended in a way that could have benefited all.
The real question here is how do you balance what is needed for the City to excel as extraordinary and the rights of the private property owner. Experience tells us that we have not been doing a good job at making this balance. But, instead of saying what won’t work, how about discussing what will work and give subsidies or other help to developer to get what the town needs.
It is my understanding that the Bowling Alley had the opportunity to buy the facility at market value. You can’t blame a property owner/business person for wanting to turn a profit. Maybe there is a lesson to be learned here: how about more aggressive recruitment by the City of businesses that we need and want?
Yes, it’s sad to see a community icon disappear. I too enjoyed bowling at RHL. I assume if there had been enough support to retain RHL at that location, market forces and human will would have made it happen. But I can’t blame the owner/developer for a desire to invest in Edmonds and build a profitable business where the land use supports it. It’s a cheap and easy shot to assign untoward motives to business and city leaders, but totally unjustified.
Bowling alleys are dying throughout the nation, much like drive-in theaters. Yes it’s sad, but why are some dictating what kinds of businesses should exist? Don’t you think investors do their homework, making sure the market research suggests their idea will pan out? It’s amazing to read the comments about how foolish people are for building certain types of businesses. Do you think they just decided on a whim? If Walgreens is such a bad idea and you’re clearly smarter, then the smart thing to do is invest in a bowling alley yourself.
Although many on this post may boycott Walgreens, most Edmonds residents won’t. In fact, I would guess that a large part of Walgreens clientele will be regional, travelers to and from the ferry, etc., which translates into business, sales, and sales tax revenue for the City. Its unfortunate that many don’t see the economic benefit, which Edmonds direly needs at this time. Times are changing, and if your kids have fewer things to do because a bowling alley is gone (or if Lynnwood is too far to travel), it’s time to get creative.
Mr. Passey:
Obviously you believe that businesses never make mistakes about what kind of business to pursue, or where to locate those businesses. I’ve got news for you. I have spent the last 25 years of my career as a marketing executive for two different corporations. All businesses make mistakes.
No marketing study would reveal that a third drug store is needed in the Westgate area. Walgreens is going there because Bartell Drugs is there. It’s a market share issue.
Mr. Wambolt,
No, I do believe businesses make mistakes and that market studies can be flawed. But I think this boils down to your definition of need. A business could view an opportunity to gain market share against a competitor as filling a need. Even if you don’t agree, you seem quick to dismiss the notion that CUSTOMERS need another drug store at Westgate. Bartells is small, located on a tiny footprint and has access/circulation issues. Walgreens will provide an option for people who find it more convenient to get their prescriptions filled on the NE corner. Furthermore, what if it turns out that Walgreens is able to operate more competitively and offer better prices than Bartells, thereby gaining market share and saving customers money? I guess you don’t consider that a need. I think Edmonds’ demographics are in favor of another drug store there, unless something radical happens and there’s a reversal in the growth of the aging population.
Mr. Passey:
Service stations tried occupying every corner; that didn’t work. Once upon a time there were three phamacies at Westgate, including the NE corner. Stewart’s was in the current Goodwill building, then QFC and Albertson’s added pharmacies and drove Stewart’s out of business.
Walgreens will cause the total size of the marked to increase, but most of their business will not be incremental as it will come from current QFC and Bartell customers.
All of the many customers of Bartell who I know, and who have commented on this site, have not cited the problems that you have conjured up. Makes me think that you may have some connection with Walgreens.
I have absolutely no connection to Walgreens, I’m just in favor of upholding Constitutional rights. It’s disturbing to me when citizens conjure up arguments to try to deny the rights of individuals or groups. Do you really believe the Hearing Examiner should have denied the permit, and if so, on what basis?
Maybe Walgreens is making a huge mistake they will soon regret. Still, it’s their right to make that mistake.
Scott:
You are preaching to the choir. See #13 above. The H.E. did the right thing; his decision was determined by the law.