Three Members Resign from Design Review Board - quorum no longer possible
The City Council’s 4-3 decision to overturn the Design Review Board (DRB) approval of the Bank of America project in downtown Kirkland has lead to the immediate resignations of three members. The resignation letters of Steve Cox, Todd Kilburn and Phyllis Warman were dated May 7th.
When combined with the resignation of Jeff Bates two weeks earlier, this leaves the seven seat DRB with only three remaining members — and unable to achieve a quorum unless an alternate is available.
According to the DRB Rules of Procedure, “The Design Review Board (DRB) is responsible for the review of certain development projects in designated pedestrian-oriented business districts.”
The DRB consists of seven unpaid volunteers. Board members serve for four year terms and are required to put in extremely long hours. They are charged with the task of making difficult design decisions on many of Kirkland’s most important development projects.
Serving on a committee for the City of Kirkland is a very rewarding way to give back to the community. At times it can be frustrating, challenging and often thankless. For these former members of the DRB, the reversal of the Bank of America decision was too much to bear.
Todd Kilburn’s resignation letter conveys his frustration with the Council’s decision,
“It is beyond disappointment when a group of volunteer, Council appointed, experienced design professional, and dedicated citizens of Kirkland, can be lead through the City’s adopted design review process by City staff, attend numerous late night DRB meetings, provide thoughtful advice and feedback to the applicant, and eventually approve the project based on the City’s design guidelines, only to be so easily dismissed… Unfortunately, it is clear that the City Council would prefer a different design review process or maybe just a different Board.”
The three resignation letters submitted on May 7th can be can be read here.
These resignations have left the City without the ability to continue the approval process for many other developments around town. Review of the DRB public meetings calendar shows how central a role the DRB plays in Kirkland’s application process. Other recent DRB meetings have included Parkplace redevelopment by Touchstone Development, The McCloud project on Lake Street South, and of course, Bank of America.
We, as a community, need to come to consensus on how Kirkland can move forward with sensible growth. It is clear from the Council’s decision that business as usual is no longer acceptable. Kirkland needs a new method for approving development applications lest we revisit this scenario again in the future.
This problem is not new to Kirkland. Similar issues in 2004 lead to the famed (or infamous) “Lake and Central” mess - the reversal of a decision to build a multi-use project in the heart of downtown.
In order to prevent legal battles in the future, we need to address the underlying issues:
- ambiguity in the existing code
- inconsistent application of the code
- too much discretion in the hands of the DRB
These and many more questions need to be answered for both the community and for the property owners. Both parties actually have similar interests: the predictable application of rules under which sensible development can progress — without the threat of being overturned by appeal.
Citizens groups like CiViK do not wish to appeal developments. They have done so out of frustration and a recognition that the City has not been following its own rules.
In business, time is money and uncertainty equals risk. Developers want a reasonable amount of certainty that if they follow the rules, as dictated by the City, they will be able to improve their properties accordingly.
The DRB’s role was to ensure that developments meet the goals of a pedestrian-oriented business district. This function is still needed. What needs to change is the level of discretion the DRB wields.
The code allows for great discretion to promote development in line with the goals of a pedestrain-oriented downtown. This needs to change. The code should be modified to raise the standards of what Kirkland requires of developments in return for consistent and predictable application of said requirements. If we can remove the ambiguity from the code, then we remove much of the threat of lawsuits.
The DRB is not at fault in this scenario. They are volunteers doing their best to advance the City’s plan. The developers are not at fault. They must follow any rules laid down by the City before they are approved to build anything. The City Council is not at fault. They made a decision based upon their understanding of the facts. They are not lawyers, and cannot be expected to be so. The citizens are not at fault. They merely wish for the City to apply the rules on the books.
Perhaps we have dropped the ball and given too much discretion to this board. Perhaps Kirkland needs more consistency and predictability in the code. The solution will require that which is difficult to muster before an election year: leadership.
If there is fault to be found, it lies in the ambiguity of a poorly written set of rules upon which both the citizens and property owners must rely. Multiple interpretations of the same code by different parties is at the heart of what ails development in Kirkland.
We are all in this boat together — citizen activists, property owners, developers, shoppers and shopkeepers. We need a solution which will help Kirkland grow in a sensible and pedestrian-oriented manner. We all need a healthy downtown.
We can choose to punt this problem into the future and force another Council deal with it or we can make the tough decision, the right decision, and solve this now. It wont be easy. It wont make everyone happy. But the status quo is untenable.
We cannot continue as a community in which citizens feel the need to appeal every time a developer gets approval of a project. The City needs to act quickly to rectify the mess for all parties involved.
What are your views? How can Kirkland move forward on this issue? How can Kirkland improve the process of development in Kirkland? What changes need to be made to the code? What will be necessary to have consistent application of the rules under which development proceeds? What will be necessary to avert citizens from filing appeals? What should be the new role for the DRB?
Related Articles
18 Responses to “Three Members Resign from Design Review Board - quorum no longer possible”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe
You can subscribe by email to receive newsletter updates:
Subscribe through a RSS feed reader
-
-
-
-
Translator
By N2H
KCTS 9 Connects - Yakima Valley Gangs
Sponsored Ads
Kirkland needs to adopt the Seattle model and set boundaries that are firm on the issues that are the most important to us. The neighborhood review board is involved with color and texture of bricks and stuff like that. I don’t think they have much control over the heights and distances from streets and parking. I think the city sets those rules. Why don’t we do it that way? What will it take to make a change in how this town makes the rules?
[Reply]
You say: Serving on a committee for the City of Kirkland is a very rewarding way to give back to the community.
Given this slap in their face, I’m no so sure about that.
You say: At times can be frustrating, challenging and often thankless. This is more on target.
You say: too much discretion in the hands of the DRB
No, too much dictatorial “we know what’s best” attitude from the city council, or at least from 4/7 of the members.
You say: Citizens groups like CiViK do not wish to appeal developments. They have done so out of frustration and a recognition that the City has not been following its own rules.
Unless you are a inside member of CiViK, how can you say this? They might claim this, but they just putting positive spin on their NIMBY obstructionist acts as they look down from their own towering condo buildings.
[Reply]
“We are all in this boat together — citizen activists, property owners, developers, shoppers and shopkeepers. We need a solution which will help Kirkland grow in a sensible and pedestrian-oriented manner. We all need a healthy downtown.”
I agree with this sentiment. We need a healthy city in general with balanced growth in all sectors of the community.
————————————————-
Welcome to the blogosphere, Rob. I’ve been writing a blog for Kirkland’s Highlands for over a year which touches on city issues, events, and real estate. I’ll add you to my links. Good luck and thanks for your information.
[Reply]
City council only need look in the mirror to figure out why these people quit. These were design professionals working for free, and they weren’t listened to. The council was supposed to be interpreting the codes as a judicial body and as charged by the city laws for these appeals, but they did not. The decision was political. The vote was along “party lines”.
I do think that cleaning up the codes is the right thing to do in these circumstances. If the interpretation is too hard, make it more cut and dried so that appeals that discuss the meaning of “should” aren’t on the docket.
[Reply]
The Ghost Of Peter Kirk: I’d like to know more of this “party lines” from whence you speak. I’ve looked at the minutes of several recent Council meetings and I nearly always see 7-0 or 6-1 votes. Where else has this group voted 4-3 (not counting Annexation, we know about that one)?
[Reply]
HWSNBN: There aren’t many instances when it comes down to this. It isn’t as partisan as state and federal government. The clearest divisions come about in the cases of growth and development, like this one. The three minority voters tend to be pro-growth, and the others the opposite.
This case sticks out to me because it was a judicial ruling, not a legislative one. If a member wants to vote on a typical council matter based on some personal preference (which may be the preference of their supporters), IMHO they have more discretion then when they are charged with being the judiciary.
[Reply]
Lets not forget that the city is the people. This is often forgotten by the city. Most of the people feel things should be keep to a smaller scale downtown. But the city will often cite the “Growth Management Act” as the reason for their actions. My reply to that is “you can interpet the act anyway you want until a court of law says you are wrong!”
[Reply]
The party lines I believe are the City Council members supported by CIVIK voted for the appeallant, CIVIK.
Councilwoman Jessica Greenway’s campaign management staff was made up of CIVIK board members. An election she only won by 104 votes out of nearly 10,000. Go figure…
Mayor Jim Lauinger’s campaign management staff included the president of CIVIK. Almost 25% of his campaign money came from CIVIK.
Councilman Tom Hodgson’s Treasurer was a CIVIK board member.
The fact that these three sat in a judicial hearing on the matter where their campaign management was the appeallant and didn’t disclose it I feel does a grave disservice to all of us Kirkland residents.
[Reply]
I didn’t know that Civik was that powerful. Can anyone from Civik refute what Long Time Kirkland Resident said? Who is Civik? That is very interesting. I think the council members named have the integrity to act fairly despite their past associations.
[Reply]
CIVIK is a small special interest “citizen action group.”
I realize the neighborly thing to do is give people the benefit of the doubt that they’re acting with everyones best interest at heart. However, members of CIVIK didn’t do that when they appealed the decision of the DRB. Even though DRB meetings were public forums with community input that CIVIK participated in, they apparently felt that after months of public deliberations the DRB did not act responsibly for the public good. Nor did Councilman Tom Hodgson when he stated, “What’s right for the intent and spirit of downtown was pretty much pushed aside” and “I’m hearing… through this whole process from the very start it looked like the ‘five story project’ that came in and we are going to find a way to make it fit. Not from the ground up, but from the fifth floor down.” Again, Councilman Hodgson didn’t seem to believe the DRB was acting responsibly for the public good. It appears from his statements villifying the DRB that he believes the DRB had a hidden agenda to deceive the public in some way.
So, should I trust CIVIK and the City Council members they support when they don’t reciprocate and trust their advisory boards are acting for the public good!
The reason campaign contributions are capped is to limit the influence of special interest groups. However, when 25% of ones campaign war chest comes from one group, that bears scrutiny. CIVIK took extreme measures to get their way. What makes them and the City Council members they support beyond reproach? Especially when I listen to the incoherent ramblings of some City Council members trying to manufacture a reason to overturn the DRBs decision in favor of the appeallant — their campaign supporters. Doh!
With repspect to the BofA building, I perceived the DRB actions to be in the interest of the public good. They avoided caving to special interest groups. The DRB got the developer to design in bigger set-backs and step-ups (particularly on Kirkland Avenue where they weren’t required by code), extremely wide sidewalks with multiple pedestrian features including opening up the corner with an added water feature, the elimination of two out of three automobile sidewalk cut-outs, and, yes, “superior retail.” I simply don’t buy the argument that just because a bank (almost half it’s present size) is a tenant in one out of four retail spaces that means the developer didn’t provide “superior retail.” That to me is what I refer to as a “manufactured reason.” And what did the DRB trade off for all that? a fifth residential floor stepped back that represents only 45% lot coverage. The developer could build a four story office building with “standard” retail, set-backs to code and little in the way of pedestrian interest and it would only be one foot shorter!!!
[Reply]
Long Time Kirkland Resident: You make some interesting points, one of which I would like to investigate further here. You state, “I perceived the DRB actions to be in the interest of the public good.”
I think you may be right. I don’t know. What concerns me is how we proceed as a community going forward. Do we want volunteers of the DRB making judgement calls that can later be overturned upon appeal? Or do we want the DRB to ensure that city code is being followed? This is a fundamental question before all of us. We need to figure this out because having citizens feel they must sue the City is not good developers, citizens or the City.
In my view, we need to tighten up the code so that there is less ambiguity, and therefore less chance of citizen appeals and less risk for developers. I think we should eliminate the superior retail classification and make all of the retail downtown, “superior”, whatever that means. Who wants anything less than superior retail in downtown, anyway?
We should decide how many floors we want on each block (this place just isn’t that big, folks, so we should be able to figure this out!) and then stick to that decision. Period. Well, that’s my two cents worth.
By the way, good posts to all on this subject.
[Reply]
The DRB’s job wasn’t to ensure developers adhered to building codes. That’s the job of the planning department. And they’ve always done their job. The DRB was to ensure we had great design. And they were given some vague specifications with respect to “superior” retail they could trade for a fifth “residential” floor in exchange for that “superior” retail. Moreover, we had some of the most talented award winning architects and designers in the region DONATING their time for FREE for our benefit. And what was the result, a special interest group says a bank that already occupies the space and is next door to several other banks doesn’t constitute superior retail and the City Council members supported by the plaintif in agreement??? Saying all that public deliberation and thoughtful negotiation of the DRB was for not.
Have the DRB make judgement calls that are overturned, of course not. But to hear the incoherent comments from some of the City Council who know nothing about design talking about what constitutes “superior” retail is laughable. As the saying goes, “you get the government you deserve. ”
Having extremely explicit design guidelines is another way to go. Many vanilla communities have tried that. Specifying what colors are and are not acceptable. And that’s what you get. No creativity. Oh yeah, we already had that and you get things like the Portsmith. The reason the DRB was created in the first place. But the building in front of the Portsmith is only two stories. Whew, that was close…. It was almost out-of-human-scale…
The whole point was that the DRB was able to make some trade-offs like they did with the BofA building developer. They encouraged the builder to design some great amenities for the community with lots of public space and in return they could get a fifth “residential” floor that made the building only one foot taller than a four story office building! Wow, we really need to reign in on that…
Kirkland has 70K residents. That’s not a very small town. And we’re right at the heart of the developed region. CIVIK seems to want Kirkland to be like Langley, Washington. I like Langley but the rents in Langley are probably a tenth of what they are here. You can’t make it with that kind of retail in a town like Kirkland. This is not a tourist destination. It’s a bedroom community to Microsoft, Amazon, Boeing, Starbucks, Amgen, Philips Medical, Siemens Medical, Google (more like a loft).
I want Kirkland to retain the good characteristics. That doesn’t mean no growth.
[Reply]
FYI, Long Time Resident, the population of Kirkland is actually about 47k, not 70k. http://www.mrsc.org/cityprofiles/cityprofile.aspx?id=108
The 70k number is what the city will be after annexation takes place. Most likely not this year, thanks to poor budgeting/management, and perhaps not on the same scale, but it will eventually take place. It’s part of Kirkland’s Comprehensive Plan and the regional GMA.
Either way, the point about not being a very small town is valid. Folks need to realize that if they keep meddling in thoughtful development of downtown, Kirkland could eventually find itself with a “main street” not unlike Bellevue, where the developers have effectively moved the “heart” of what was old Bellevue and main street by developing else where. Will Kirkland have a “NE 8th” style relocation of it’s heart? Totem Lake or maybe along 85th near Costco? It could happen.
Like it or not, Kirkland needs some density in it’s downtown if it’s going to thrive. The DRB is in place to make sure it’s thoughtfully and creatively done so as to maintain and enhance character. The City Council does not have the expertise to determine the nuances of good development. The council’s job is to provide leadership and vision, not micromanage according to the whims of special interest groups.
[Reply]
Yes, 42,800 is Kirkland at present. The 70 plus thousand includes the PAA, which does hugely support Kirkland businesses, and their community actions.
IMHO, DBA paid too much attention to desing, and not enough to making sure it matched the Comp PLan. That is the issue the city council had.
It is a beautiful desing and much improved over the eyesore there now. But the KCC has important concerns as to whether it met the comp plan. This is not “Zoning’ as Butcher states, but adhereing to the overall plan the businesses, city leaders and residents have set for downtown.
And even with that, I disagree that DRB doesn’t need to enforce zoning. That is very much a part of their role in working wiht developers to create plans that meet zoning, or require minimal variances, are aesthetically pleasing, safe and functional…AND meet with the over all plan. The plans are there for a purpose. Sometimes I feel people forget that!
Seems Jessica Greenway is content wiht us being small town..i.e. MEdina, per her comment in tonight’s city council meeting. City Council also needs to get real and work better wiht developers or no building under eight stories will be viable just from the sheet costs of working with our sometimes less than knowledgable, often less than courageous KCC!
[Reply]
[...] were interested in reconsidering their decisions of May 6, which resulted in the decimating resignations of three DRB members and the halting of several major development projects dead in their tracks. Ever since, a cloud of [...]
Thanks for the correction Finn on the Hill and Want to be Kirkland and I agree with your comments.
Bellevue has done an incredbile job of turning an uninviting, pedestrian unfriendly place into a triving community. Obviously, tall skyscrapers are not appropriate for downtown Kirkland but netiher are dilapidated buildings and run-down strip-malls. I think there is a viable middle-ground and the DRB was working hard toward that. Although I think redevelopment is mandatory for Totem Lake it would be a shame if the heart of Kirkland moved to there.
I don’t know about the DRB being responsible for enforcing zoning but they should be responsbile for more than the selection of paint colors.
It’s good to see the KCC has had a change of heart but I’m not sure what this means. They’ve tabled the decision? Now what? A compromise? That’s exactly what the DRB did — negotiate a compromise for the public good. Who decides? The KCC? Is the KCC now going to review all designs? What a mess they’re created, arrghhh…
[Reply]
It’s so nice to see a thread on which I am in such agreement. And I hope that enough has been said (in enough places) that the subject of recusal comes up again at the McLeod appeal. Since the Portsmith appeal group is just a regurgitation of the civik people under a cloak of just-plain-citizens. I can’t wait to live in a city that doesn’t make my head explode.
[Reply]
I have had enough of this craziness circling this city. It is time for change and that is not going to come from our council. Civil people are fine with me because I don’t trust the city planning commission a bit. They need to follow the rules but so does the council. They are out of control or attached to a yo yo being pulled by a string. Kirkland needs to slow down this crazy growth streak.
[Reply]