The CVS project proposed for 45th and Meridian took an unusual turn at the Design Review Board meeting on the 4th of November. An update was presented to the Wallingford Community Council at its meeting last week. Here is what we know at this time:
The original design for the project presented by CVS to the Design Review Board called for the destruction of the building which includes the Moon Temple and the closed Tully’s Coffee store. CVS proposed to replace it with its standard CVS building design. Much of the community and DRB felt that the proposal was out of place for Wallingford and sent the developer back to the drawing board. The DRB also requested a proposal which would include a taller building to include housing.
During the intervening time, CVS designers met several times with members of the Wallingford Community Council Land Use Committee to come up with an alternative design. Over the weeks of meetings, the proposal was significantly improved. Instead of replacing the existing building, it would be restored in many respects to its earlier design. Gone was the standard subu
rban CVS design and in its place were design elements which would be more consistent with our neighborhood. A number of improvements were agreed to, covering not only design elements, but signage, removal of truck unloading on Meridian, and many other items.
The revised design was presented to the DRB on November 4th. Most of the community members at the meeting seemed to support the changes. However, the developer did not present a housing alternative as requested by the DRB at its first meeting. The developer said that the property owners would not sell the property, but would only agree to a lease for 25 years and the owners did not want the building to go higher than original one story proposal. They also did not want to become landlords. However, the DRB evidently felt that a housing alternative should have been proposed anyway. The Board voted not to proceed with the project.
The decision of the DRB leaves the project somewhat in limbo. The developer indicates that it makes no sense to present a proposal it can’t fulfill (i.e., a housing element). The developer told the WCC at its meeting that it wasn’t going to abandon the project and was considering its legal options. These could include:
- Trying to avoid design review completely by re-characterizing the proposal as a remodel rather than a new building
- Trying to apply for a permit for the building and see what DPD does with it (because, for the most part, DRB decisions are not binding on DPD)
- Bringing legal action to declare that the DRB action was not valid
Or something else dreamed up by its lawyers. Whatever happens, the Community Council’s concern is that the substantial progress made in the design of the building through negotiations ought not be abandoned.
To be continued…
While this project is “in limbo”, it would be nice to see something done with that space. Maybe even something as simple as artwork in the windows as opposed to the brown paper that is there now.
holy crammmminneeemeees
How about putting this CVS where the ghetto Winchell’s is. Seriously, that corner has become the blight of Wallingford.
Good for DRB for staying their ground. Design issues aside, it’s Wallingford residents (and more of them) that will keep our INDEPENDENT retail healthy and vibrant well into the future. No character, 1 story CVS aiming to put others out of business? yuck.
@housing – The DRB didn’t say no to CVS, they said they wanted housing on top. Are you implying that DRB is just looking for reasons to say no to keep CVS out?
The DBR is asking for too much. The owner has set restrictions on how he will allow the property to be used; it is not CVS’s decidion. Perhaps the DRB could demand plans for a helicopter pad and full scale restaurant, just becasue. The DBR must recharacterize its thinking to include the practical and doable.
And it would be nice to see something happen with the old Winchell’s space. At least take down the gross old signs.
Ach, spelling is bad. Not enough coffee…
Freddy Rivas who owns the Rancho Bravo taco truck is leasing the old Winchell’s building. I sent him an email voicing my concern about the sorry state of the building. He responded quickly, saying, “We have plans for the building. We’re trying to keep up with the maintenance and will definitely be tidying things up over the upcoming weeks.”
That was three-and-a-half years ago.
I am surprised the DRB has so much say in this considering that CVS is just leasing the space. CVS doesn’t own the building. I wasn’t aware that the DRB had so much say in landlord/tenant transactions. I am no fan of the CVS though. If CVS occupied the Tully’s space without a major exterior remodel I would imagine they wouldn’t have to go through the DRB.
All i wanna know is… What does this mean for MOON TEMPLE?!!
I say the more hurdles CVS has to jump through the better! Maybe they’ll pull out of the project and the landlords can lease to Bartell or Starbucks like they wanted.
I attended both EDG meetings as well as the WCC initial meeting on this subject. My impression was that the initial EDG guidance was that the project must address density. This is a building we will have for at least the next 25 years and the Board cited that any design response in the heart of Wallingford residential urban village deserved greater density. See Seattle City’s B1 guideline regarding height,bulk and scale-as well as well as but not necessarily residential. The board was correct to stand by their initial recommendation and state the new project did not comply. This new proposal did nothing to address destiny.
Regarding the second EDG meeting: My impression was that most community members who are not on the WCC land use committe-did NOT speak favorably of the new proposal. It did feel however like this was a done deal and that those who that has worked with the developer were satisfied. So surprisingly the EDG Board upheld their initial ruling.
We will have this building for 25 years plus-so goes this corner so might go others to yet another box. It is setting a precedent .Wallingford itself has it’s own guidelines aside from the city guidelines but last updated since May of 2005. Maybe its time to set our sights on the future look and function of our urban village. We deserve better than this!
Rancho bravo said that a year ago.. no change just dumpier. I quit going to that dump. Everyone should write them refuse and detail their area on reviews.
I was at the meeting, and spoke out against a poor addition to our community. The charm of 45th St. is that every few feet, you pass a different store/restaurant/bar/whatever, with new interesting stuff to look at and consider engaging in.
Any business taking up the entire building (which is currently 5 different spaces, 6 if you consider Moon Temple’s bar & restaurant different spaces) had better offer incredible value to the community. Additionally, 50% of the site is completely undeveloped (the parking lot). This is at a corner which is one of the most prominent along 45th.
We need more, interesting businesses in Wallingford and more housing for more people to enjoy those businesses. This was made very clear by the many commenters at the initial meeting. The giant, redundant drug store does none of these things.
Kudos to the EDG board for sticking up for us, and not letting a crap project go any further..
For me, `the owner said no’ is a pretty lame excuse. The relationship between the owner and the developer and whatever clients they may have to satisfy, is not the DRB’s problem, and those parties can’t point their fingers at each other and excuse themselves from compliance. I’m surprised that anyone would take that seriously.
I’m also a little surprised, in a pleasant way, to see the DRB put their foot down and said no, and if the developers try to go over their heads I would hope Planning, mayor etc. will hear from residents about it. (Don’t bother to write Conlin, I see he’s behind by 402 votes today, by the way!)
Donn- Yes !!! That is exactly what theDesign Review Board said-just ’cause someone says-I don’t like it-wanna do it etc-doesnt make it okay. And Jeff you speak to the density issue. Hope Conlin makes it-he passed legislature regarding specific density issues this fall-but this project is somewhat after the fact.
Wait–is the idea to keep the existing building, to tear down the existing building and build something with retail and housing, or is the DRB looking to somehow stick housing on top of the existing building? Is the property wonder leasing the building or the land? Because I can understand the owner not wanting to try to jam housing onto the existing building. Sorry, I am very confused by this latest.
I was at the meeting, too, and I second Pam, Jeff, and Donn.
Also: A letter from the owner was read at the meeting, talking about how leasing to CVS is their way of supporting the community. Not sure how anyone could believe that, or say it with a straight face.
Regarding Rancho Bravo: I got mail from Freddy today saying he plans to move the truck into the Winchell’s building by the end of the year. Granted, he said the same thing a year ago, but I kinda believe him this time. I’ll of course keep Wallyhood posted!
does anyone have Freddy’s (Rancho Brovo) email. We all want a date when that eyesore will be addressed. That place is a TOTAL violation of health code and building code and the corner is lowering property values.
More important….. does anyone have the slumlord Freddy is leasing from? That is who’s feet should be held to the fire.
I do not believe him. Lies for 2 years already, why truth now?
If you see this breaks any city codes.. call helath department- rats, piles of rubbish? no source for water for sterilizing? improper handling or storing of food or food-related items? problems wiht sanitation or helaht concerns re workers or food/ The city will look at that.
The city will not consider crummy looks or broken promises as anything.
And, once again, we’ve wandered to a different topic–part of the charm of Wallyhood, but I still don’t fully understand the CVS story.
CVS is leasing, not buying, the property.
Who would own a new building–the landowner, CVS (“Tenant Improvement?”), the “Developer”? And who is the “developer”–CVS, the landowner, or a third party?
According to this report, CVS presented building designs; the landowner doesn’t want housing, as reported by the “developer”. And some “they” did not want to become landlords–the developer or the landowner?
Ultimately, aside from the DRB, whose call is it how big to build–the landowner, the developer, or CVS? And is the developer, who want to continue with the plans, building if CVS leaves the project? Is the developer under contract to CVS, vice versa, neither, or is the “developer” CVS?
There is at least one more level of involvement here (owner–developer–CVS–DRB–Wallingford) than I thought. Just trying to keep the whole thing straight.
My understanding is that the developer (Velmeir) is working for CVS on the project. The property owners are a family with long time ties to Wallingford, who want to keep the property in the family. When Tullys closed, the family evidently had a number of offers to sell, but opted for the CVS lease. My understanding is that neither CVS or the property owners wanted to become landlords. More significantly from the view of CVS and the developer, they felt that they didn’t want to invest the funds necessary to build the housing project if they might lose the property after 25 years. (The McDonalds at the corner of 45th and Stone Way had a similar situation. McDonalds was leasing the land. At the termination of the lease, the owners decided they wanted a different development, and McDonalds had to vacate and remove its building.)
Yep. The owners are holding the developer back, but from the perspective of the community or the board, that’s neither here nor there. And while you might say the development is “temporary”, 25 years is a long time.
While preserving some aspects of the existing structure is better than the generic-box presented at the first meeting, this is still a huge project, and would require gutting the whole building. If CVS decides a year or two later that they don’t want a branch in Wallingford after all, it’ll be a pretty big project to convert it back to a multi-use space, which is what I think that space ought to be.
RIght, who’d move into an abandoned CVS? Great big retailers like that aren’t a good fit for the location, as a practical matter even aside from the question of whether they fit anyone’s vision of the Wallingford retail district.
Thanks, Lee. That’s very helpful.
Maybe A&P could move back in!
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201311852651548&set=o.150141861804150&type=1&theater
The problem with a 15,000 to 20,000 sf “big box” building is that it is difficult to repurpose after the tenant it was originally built for leaves or goes out of business. They are fine for a single tenant, but very difficult (often impossible) to demise for multiple tenants. For some recent examples, you don’t have to travel too far to find vacant former Circuit City or Linens ‘n Things locations. In cases where owners have found replacement tenants, they are often B or C list big box retailers. For a less recent, but more local example, remember the old Rite Aid at 45th & Bagley. It sat vacant for years and was ultimately demolished to make way for a condo.
It may be inevitable that we get a CVS at this location. It is the owner’s property, and if they want to put in a CVS, they will probably succeed. The neighborhood will be far better off if the existing building is rehabbed than if it is demolished and replaced with a suburban-style “big box” building.
RE: “KAM said,
All i wanna know is… What does this mean for MOON TEMPLE?!!”
The Moon Temple would be no great loss. I put a complaint in with the state alcohol control board regarding underage drinking in their lounge. It’s a well-known spot for cheap, strong red bull/alcohol drinks and they don’t question ages or fake IDs.
Does anyone really go there for the food?
thanks for the tip, i love a redbull vodka
The Moon Temple would surely be a loss and plenty of people go there for food. You put in a complaint with the LCB? Really? What evidence did you have to support your claims? Another whinging, mouth breathing, boring yuppie in Wallingford. As if there wasn’t enough already.
Any updates on this project or the building will just sit vacant all year?
Last time i drove by Rancho Bravo.. Winchells window sseemed less trashy looking. I still wonder re the burned asian restaurant.. weren’t they going to clean it up by year end and appreciated our partience? Re CVS- kind of an ugly eyesore? CVS probably does nto care.