The building moratorium that almost was… and may yet be
Last night in an almost empty chamber, the Kirkland City Council debated passing a 60 day moratorium on building in downtown Kirkland. The plan, which was championed by Mayor Lauinger, caught several members of the Council by surprise and a lively debate ensued. Ultimately, a decision was reached to delay discussion of a building moratorium in downtown until the Council’s September 16th meeting. The Mayor sent this email to the Council earlier in the day alerting them to the issue.
On January 22, 2008, the City of Kirkland received a “Petition to stop high-rise buildings in downtown Kirkland” which was addressed to the City Council and the Downtown Advisory Committee. The petition was originally dated November 12, 2007.
The petition reads,“Request to Stop all Downtown Building Permits until a “Future Plan and Vision” is Completed and Agreed to By the Community…
“We, the undersigned, are writing to share our concerns, relative to the need for the City Council to complete and enact a “Future Plan and Vision” for Downtown Kirkland. Until that time, the City Council should stop the issuance of all building permits under the current zoning guidelines…”
The petition is 25 pages long including letters received by the Council in favor of action to stop building downtown. The names Andrew Chavez, Amy Chavez and Rob Brown appear to be the organizers of the petition since their names appear at the top of many of the 21 pages meant for signatures. The petition is available for download: moratorium-petition (a 25 page PDF weighing in at 1.6MB).
The reason the Mayor gave for the proposed moratorium was to allow for the Council to clarify the meaning of the Downtown Plan and eliminate ambiguities therein — an effort to prevent future appeals like those of the Bank of America and McLeod projects.
An interim moratorium would provide a “quiet time” for the Council to define what they believe the Downtown Plan means and give the DRB guidance.
Several council members expressed concern that this proposal was being unduly thrust upon them and they were ill-prepared to debate the issue at this time. They argued for a two week delay and the Council chose to revisit the issue of a potential moratorium in two weeks.
Print This Article
Print This ArticleRelated Articles
10 Responses to “The building moratorium that almost was… and may yet be”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe
You can subscribe by email to receive newsletter updates:
Subscribe through a RSS feed reader
OMG! An interview with Kirkland’s Jason Mesnick from “The Bachelor”
Sponsored Ads
Maybe North Rose Hill residents should also consider a petition to request a building moratorium. Actually it should include all of Kirkland that is presently under the economic burden of illegal stormwater dumping by the City. This storage of stormwater on private land is in the form of an unconstitutional “taking” of private land and very subject to numerous lawsuits.
What do you say residents…petition…Seattle Times/King TV investigation, picket lines…or just a good old fashioned lawsuit.
OR…nearby commercial businesses with huge parking lots, could leverage the City into allowing for some reasonable development on the smaller artificial wetlands which have been created by the City’s neglect and greed for the big businesses and their sales tax revenues.
[Reply]
A time out is what is needed for cooler heads to fix the confusing regulations around superior retail.
[Reply]
I’m curious as to the urgency that would rationalize such a sudden move. The Mayor’s email to council was sent only about 5 hours before they got together at 6:00 p.m., and it might not have even received by all of them before that time. He wrote that the petition might be presented again that evening, but apparently it wasn’t.
[Reply]
$15 million deficit
Tax increases
Cuts in services
Higher Business taxes
Lower than expected sales tax revenue
Annexing King County is on hold
Appealed bank of America is not being built
Lawsuit against Kirkland
We are now looking at a moratorium on new building. Park place is going to be targeted next.
Anything that brings more business to town or develops old tired buildings is prevented from happening. If I were tring to sabotage Kirkland I couldn’t do a better job.
Things don’t add up. I can
[Reply]
Alex, my thoughts exactly. Some people are going to “quaintify” Kirkland right into oblivion. I noticed many, many signatures are from a few buildings near Lake Street. Do their motivations translate into a city-wide interest worthy of such a drastic action?
[Reply]
What I find interesting is why the sudden urgency. This was submitted in January. If this was such a critical issue why not address it when it was file? Why try to sneak it in under the radar without posting it to the agenda? Obviously hoping no one would notice before it was done. This type of behavior is not in the spirt of open government, but unfortunately seems typical of some members of the Council.
Although the regulations clearly need to be changed putting a complete stop to everything is not the answer. It can only damage what is already a suffering downtown economy. Hopefully sane heads on the Council will prevail on the 16th and this will not be passed.
[Reply]
DCD, you are correct, the petition was submitted 1/22/08 based on what Rob has posted here. You’ve asked why it was not addressed at that time - I think it is because the BOA appeal was filed at about the same time. With a quasijudicial issue pending including building heights, it hindered the Council’s ability to discuss the issue, pro or con, at the next meeting right after the petition was received by the City. The minutes for the 2/5/08 meeting show the petition acknowledged. The minutes for the 3/4/08 meeting reflect:
“Item 11a City Manager Dave Ramsay, City Attorney Robin Jenkinson, and Planning and Community Development Director Eric Shields presented potential actions for Council consideration.
Motion to to defer discussion of the options until the appeals processes for all active downtown design review board applications have concluded.
Moved by Councilmember Dave Asher, seconded by Deputy Mayor Joan McBride
Vote: Motion carried 7-0″
The 9/2/08 meeting was the first one that occurred after the appeals processes concluded, and so it was the first opportunity to bring it back in keeping with the motion. Whether a moratorium is a good idea or not, it is notable that the Council members who wanted it on the agenda are honoring the motion without having to be prodded by the submitters.
[Reply]
I think Alex and the others get it. This is very strange behavior in light of the recent events. I think the recap and the outcome is as follows:
A small vocal group who just happen to be financial supporters of the majority of City Council members appeals a Design Review Board approved project. Said small vocal group uses “muscle” on said majority of Council Members to overturn DRB approval. Denial (not the river)of approval which is not based on any fact even causes one said Council Member to publicly violate State law. Said small vocal group and said City are served with notice of lawsuit concerning said denial. Majority of Council Members have now casued the City to hire outside counsel (again) to fight lawsuit. Said Majority of Council Members in a further attempt to prove to the court that they acted outside the law try to pass a moratorium on Downtown Building Permits without a valid petition nor public input. Said moratorium as stated by the Mayor is necessary to clarify the rules for the DRB. Case goes to court. City loses case. Lots of big legal fees. City loses revenue and dollars that could have been used for other purposes. This situation is a first year law student’s perfect case. This Council is obviously not listening to the public who want no part of this and more importantly to their own legal counsel.
[Reply]
I’m glad this letter has resurfaced. The DT Plan must be clarified to be far to both residents of downtown and developers of downtown. When the 4 story building (the McLoud project) was approved, many surrounding property owners lost 100K-200K in the value of their homes. These residents had been told by the city employees that “only two stories along all of Lake St” could be built on this property site and therefor felt that their property value would remain constant. On the other hand, the builder, McLoud, should be able to purchase a property and know exactly what can be built on it to allow for the full potential of the property. We need to clarify the plan to protect everyone. The Council should accept the moritorium to allow time for clarification of the plan. Any resident of Kirkland who Loves Kirkland, wants to see these areas be updated and improved, but we must do it carefully and protect all the citizens of Kirkland.
[Reply]
The agenda for next week’s council meeting is available. The proposed moratorium analysis interestingly includes this:
“Finally, the ordinances also exempt the Bank of America project. The applicant for the Bank of America project has submitted a complete building permit application for that project. Currently, the building permit process cannot move forward as a result of the Council’s reversal of the Design Review Board’s approval of the project. The exemption in the Ordinance could become applicable in the event of an adverse result for the City in the pending Land Use Petition Action filed in King County Superior Court.”
The exemption is related to the project vesting under current rules. So if SRM wins in court they can still get their permits, it seems. McCleod may also be able to vest if they meet the criteria. Park Place and the Transit Center are also exempted from the proposed moratorium ordinances (there are two versions). Those are the biggies, so I’m not sure what the petitioners had in mind here.
[Reply]