After discussing the proposed Walgreens at 63rd and Woodward for more than two hours during Tuesday night's council meeting, the fate of the pharmacy's relocation from 63rd and Belmont is still unclear.
For the residents in attendance, the proposal represented everything from a bureaucratic blunder to an affront on their livelihood. Residents took issue with everything from traffic safety to the integrity of the soil the Walgreens would be built on. Essentially, the residents supported any they felt would cast the proposal in a negative light.
And though the petition won't be voted on until June 5 at the earliest, many of the public comments came across as if it were already a done deal, creating an accusatory tone that mayor Martin Tully took exception with numerous times throughout the meeting.
“You've basically accused us of cheating on a test we haven't taken yet,” Tully said at one point during the public comment.
Representatives and partners with Walgreens were also on hand to address various issues such as sight distances on Woodward and truck traffic, but with the dearth of information and complaints the residents had, they were unable to address every concern at the meeting.
Council members, for the most part, remained neutral during the meeting, with Commissioner Bob Barnett offering one of the rare glimpses of an opinion for or against the proposal.
“I personally cannot be supportive of this thing going forward unless there's physical changes to the northbound [traffic] of Woodward,” Barnett said. “Unless there are physical changes to northbound Woodward I'm still struggling to support this.”
Barnett did add, though, if the traffic and safety problems could be met, he might feel differently.
The proposed Walgreens, which would occupy the northwest corner of Woodward and 63rd, requires more than simple construction. The plan calls for the annexation of numerous properties, the consolidation of those properties, rezoning the property from R-1 Single Family Residence to B-2 General Retail Business and finally, authorizing a special use permit for the property.
The biggest point of contention since the beginning for residents is whether or not the proposed Walgreens would fall under the umbrella of “low-intensity office”, which is what the Comprehensive Plan calls for in that area if not used for the residential it currently is. In January, the Plan Commission ultimately felt it did not fall under that umbrella, and they . However, village staff recommends approval of the plan.
The idea, at least from my point of view was 1) to provide a reasonable buffer to the residential areas from the heavy commercial use across the street, 2) at the same time allow for measured and finite redevelopment to a higher use for that part of a corridor despite shallow lot depths, and 3) avoid another situation like Fairview Village, where the SW corner of 63rd and Fairview opened up a zoning can of worms that started working south on the west side of Fairview. http://www.dgreport.com/index.php/2008/11/05/council-turns-thumbs-down-on-fairview-plan/ At that time, then-Mayor Sandack correctly noted, “Process dictates we abide by the Future Land Use map.” The current, Council approved (2/7/2012) Land Use Map shows affirms the Comprehensive Plan's designation that this would best be used as Low-Intensity Office. Good process would see Council abiding by the Future Land Use Map they approved. Fairview south on the west side, BTW, provided much impetus to move forward on the Comprehensive Plan update. Then Council Commissioner Tully took up the cause and worked effectively to make it happen.
The problem there was that Walgreen's wanted a sign that was taller than what the new sign ordiance permitted. And, Walgreen's wanted the store to face the street, with the loading dock facing the other stores in the mall, which the other store owners objected to strongly. Despite Walgreen's promising to close the store by Michael's, the Village Council voted to reject the proposal. As it turned out, Walgreen's never submitted a proposal that took into account the various objections, and the store on Lemont is still open. Since then, CVS opened at 63rd and Main, knocking down the portion of the mall east of the Ace Hardware and building a store that fits with the rest of the mall. What bugs me is that Walgreen's always wants things its way and doesn't try find solutions to objections from residents, nearby store owners, and the Village. The Village Council did the right thing in rejecting the Walgreen's proposal for 63rd and Main, and it ought to strongly suggest to Walgreen's that working with the owners of the mall across from the desired location would satisfy just about every constituency in DG.