Neighbors Lawyer Up; Appeal Potala Village on Lake Street

By on June 30, 2011 in Development, Neighborhood News

Kirkland Views has learned that multiple appeals have been filed with the City of Kirkland against a planned multi-family development, Potala Village, on Lake Street South at 10th Avenue South in the Moss Bay neighborhood. We received a copy of a letter to the City of Kirkland from the law firm Foster Pepper, representing the interests of neighboring residents. The letter states that neighbors would appeal the City’s Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) to the Hearing Examiner if the City did not address their concerns by June 28.

According to the letter, the project is “almost ten times the density of any neighboring structure ore zone. It includes at least ten times the number of units of any single development in the vicinity.” The Potala Village website describes the project in the following manner:

Potala Village Kirkland is a mixed-use project consisting of 143 luxury apartment units with spectacular views of Lake Washington. We are providing 1.7 stalls of secure parking per unit plus additional guest parking. The building will have 6,000 square feet of retail space plus retail parking. This will be the first mix-use 100% smoke free LEED silver certified building in Kirkland and the East Side.

The letter claims that the project has been inadequately studied and that the City failed to recognize the probable significant environmental impacts of the project when it issued the DNS. In addition, the City should withdraw its DNS and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or re-issue its DNS with conditions sufficient to mitigate the project’s impacts.

Stated arguments in support of the appeal:

1. The City Erred in Issuing a DNS – the Project Will Impose Significant Environmental Impacts that Must be Studied in an EIS
Among the significant environmental impacts are:

  • Neighborhood Aesthetics
  • Density
  • Traffic
  • Construction
  • Environmental contamination
  • Plants and animals
  • Recreation

2. The City Should Exercise its Broad Authority to Condition Projects Under Substantive SEPA

The concluding paragraph of the letter states that the firm’s clients would like to work with the developer and the City to arrive at a solution that is acceptable for all parties.

About Rob Butcher

Editor and Scribbler of Kirkland Views.
View all posts by Rob Butcher →

, , ,

  • K2

    Run for cover! NIMBYs are loose. Don’t bother to try to work with the developer, file a lawsuit.

  • Anonymous

    It is sad that some people on 10th are going to lose their view.  Is that a reason for the community to block a redevelopment project?  

    The vacant lot and the old buildings are eyesores, they should go and the redevelopment should be fast tracked.  Maybe if the community works with the builder rather than filing lawsuits against the builder, we can influence what type of business occupies the bottom floor.

    • Neighborhood Advocate

      The opposition is about so much more than a few neighbors loosing their view.  You must be associated with the developer.

      • Anonymous

        I must be?

      • Rustybh

        I don’t think it is. Surely any real opposition to the development would attempt to canvass the views of all residents in the vicinity. I live very close by on 1st St S. and no-one has approached me for my opinion or asked for my support. It sure looks to me as if this is an opposition by a select few homes worried about their loss of view.

        • Neighborhood Advocate

          Could it be that this project was fast tracked thru the Planning Department to the degree there was no time to do a mass community information blitz?   Please study the Potala proposal and their (smaller*!*) downtown Everett project in depth.   I live nearly a mile away from this site and am strongly opposed to the mass, density, scale, traffic ramificaitons and architectural integrity of this project for one of Kirkland’s finest assests:  Lake Washington Blvd & Lake St.  Everyone I have spoken to about it is appalled, but very few are willing to expend the time and energy it takes to “fight city hall”.  Sadly, this would not be the first zoning mistake with irrevocable ramificaitons that the City of Kirkland has made.  I wish people would take their heads out of the sand.  Once the building is built everyone will wonder how something like this was allowed!

          • Maureen Kelly

            I am pro-development.  I am certainly not opposed to multi-family development on those parcels.  But I am seriously opposed to inappropriate development:  4+ stories, 143 residential units w/ 6000sf of semi-below grade commercial/retail spacel emptying onto Lake Washington Blvd & Lake St in the midst of much lower density residential & multi-family neighborhoods is not appropriate and it does not bode well for citizen confidence in the City’s commitment to neighborhood.  To label everyone that stands up to city hall as anti development and NIMBY is simply ignorant.

          • ccranium

            How many stories, units and sf are appropriate in your view, then?

          • ccranium

            You’re trying to make a case that this lot is “one of Kirkland’s finest assets”?  It’s an eyesore, and has been for years.

            If you don’t like the current proposed plan, then what are you willing to accept?  The property owner has a right to develop it to the current zoning, which includes ”neighborhood business” mixed with multi-family.  It isn’t, and won’t be, single family homes unless you want to buy out the developer for your own vision of what it “should” be.

            Architectural integrity isn’t an issue, because the zoning doesn’t require that sort of review.  Again, if you want it to look like your version of “nice”, then buy him out.

            I have no connections with any of the parties involved, but I’m tired of people who don’t pay attention until it’s too late.

    • mobile martha

      First, I am pro density. Second, I am knowledgeable about development. Third, I am not affiliated with either side of this argument.

      But, your understanding of what it takes to obtain LEED silver is way off. Trying to use a certificate to assure no environmental impact is like trying trying to use a grocery receipt to justify organic produce prices. The building as proposed is too dense for the neighborhood.

      • Anonymous

        Some good points.  I think a look at what is required to reach LEED silver would help this discussion.  You can see the basics at:  http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=220  On the site, you can find the rating system (last updated 5/2011)  To reach silver, you must have between 50 and 59 points.  Many of the requirements are energy related items, but some have to do with environmental remediation.   The present site is considered a brownfield, meaning that there have been toxic chemicals used on site.  They developer will have to clean all of the soil and properly remove the left over pollution from the dry cleaners.  This in itself is a good thing for our community.  

        Looking at the density is not part of LEED, it is a matter for the city and the community.  If the site has had these regulations in place when the developer bought it, I think it is too bad and too late for changing and the only thing that can be done is to work to minimize impact.  Supporting things like LEED building will only benefit our community, high density or low density alike.  

  • Concerned Citizen

    Developer began working with the city when the shoreline restrictions allowed only very low intensity use. 

     A change in shorelines designation (from approximately 5/acre max) to what is proposed at approx 116/acre…

    And no one recalls any notice or posting of the property that would allow this change. 

    This doesn’t sound like NIMBY to me…

     It sounds like folks want the proper, established processes followed.  Period.

    • Anonymous

      The shoreline designation only applies to a very limited portion of the development out in front by Lake St., not the entire lot.  From the site plans, it looks like the developer is in compliance with the shoreline restrictions, and the rest of the lot is in compliance with the BN zoning that’s been in place for years.  If you didn’t like the zoning then you should have objected long ago.

  • Concerned Citizen

    After massive community input, staff review and city council discussion this parcel was slated for low intensity use.

    Then, with no public process these parcels were changed to Ultra High Intensity use… By whom and how? 

    There are many property owners who would love to change the zoning or the environmental designation of their properties.  They wait and they put forward their proposals, and for many it seems like an eternity … and they have all the hassles of the public hearings process….and they may not prevail… 

    Why was this property different?  How did it get changed without anyone seemint to be aware?

    Is this fair to all those who are waiting in line that this one seemed to “take cuts” and not have to be put before the public (or align with estabished comprehensive plans?

    How and why did this happen?

  • Anonymous

    I’m going to bet that the City (after learning from the BofA debacle and the scrutiny of ParkPlace) made sure every step they took was correct in both policy and process.  The taxpayers will now get stuck paying for the costs for the City to defend its decision and upcoming red herring appeals.  Thanks a lot, concerned citizens.  Please get your lawyers out of the discussion and  look for a solution via compromise instead of saying ”No” to any kind of multi-family development.  Have you attempted to contact the developer yet?
    I’m not associated with or know any of the parties, so don’t reply with accusations that I am.  I’m just tired of the anti-change nimbyism of a vocal few.

  • ccranium

    I had a little time this afternoon (5 minutes actually) to look at the CofK’s permit site, and then used google + blockshopper.  Lo and behold!

    3 of the 4 appellants own condos just behind, or behind and adjacent to, the proposed development!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Please, don’t tell me this isn’t about people losing their lake views from their condos.

    John Gilday was right:  This is the 2nd coming of Portsmith/BofA.

    You don’t own a view (at least in Kirkland), so please stop wasting tax dollars with this silliness by forcing the City to defend their decision.  Call the developer and buy the view rights you seek, or offer him a viable alternative.

    • Rustybh

      Just as I suspected, thanks for looking this up and sharing:)

  • Lakeview98033

    To the question of how many stories (and what densities/intensities or uses are appropriate), please see the Comprehensive Plan. This is the process where the whole community has input.  There is the neighborhood plan for Moss Bay which shows this area as appropriate for 12 units per acre (everything south of 7th St S) along Lake Street.  There is the comment about this particular SE corner where it is noted that although not residential, “limited commercial” should be allowed.  The specifics and limits to that use are described in the Comprehensive Plan as “residential market” and the uses for future are spelled out.  Massive sized Apartment Building is not listed.  Actually no apartments are listed.  “Very small mixed use building” is one of the options.  This mixed use building is maxing out every dimension and seems that it may be exceeding many.  I’m not sure that even Costco maxes out their footprint … and this is a residential neighborhood.

    To the question about community involvement and whether its about views.  I’d suggest that you request copies of the approximately 50 homeowners emails, the Muckleshoot Indians email, and the huge number of HOAs who are opposing this moving forward without better review.  You’ll see that only one or two are properties located east of  the proposed project.

    Since this piece of property was not ”planned” (Comprehensive Plan which evaluates appropriate uses over next 20 years) to be developed as high intensity, it has never been studied for use at this intensity.  It also violates other general policies found in numerous chapters re: Kirkland’s land use, housing, city character, etc.

    I’d suggest more than 5 minutes to research if you want to be informed.

     

    • ccranium

      I stated that 3 of the 4 Appellants (people who filed a formal appeal and got listed as such on the permit site) live behind or adjacent to the property.  The rest ot the people just wrote letters of comment but didn’t file formal appeals (or “Lawyer Up” as the headline appropriately states).

      The Comp and N-hood Plans speak about the area, but don’t change the fact that these specific lots kept their BN zoning after the last updates.  That BN zoning specifies the allowed setbacks and heights, without using the terms “Massive” or “very small”.  The footprint and height can be maxed out as long as the rest of the BN zoning requirements are met, just like most new single- and multi-family buildings do.  Mixed-use means just that: business and residential.

      The permit being reviewed is that for the Shoreline, which affects a relatively small area of the property.  That’s the only reason the Tribe has a dog in this fight (and do you really think this will affect a salmon run?).

      Let’s say the developer doesn’t build any structures in the shoreline area.  I believe that’d remove about 8 units from his current proposal, leaving 135.  He then doesn’t impact the shoreline buffer except for surface development and he’ll easily get that permit.  How many units would then be acceptable to the interested/concerned parties considering the current BN zoning for these specific lots?  We’re stuck with that zoning, and volumes of letters and emails won’t change it at this late date without someone buying out the current owner.

      • Concerned Citizen

        Perhaps you are not familiar with the fact that this property was previously approved for development.  If you have the city send you records you’ll see that their calculations show somewhere between 9 and 16 units could be built.  There were discussions with developers in 2002 and 2004 and all the paperwork showing the requirement for alignment with the comprehensive plan and the conversations with the attorney for the department of ecology and the small number of allowed units are all documented.  Also documented is the city’s pre-submittal documents to this developer.  This also shows that the applicable sections of the comprehensive plan were given to the applicant with highlighted areas where it states “limited commercial use” and 12 per acre along Lake Street south of 7th.

        Would it really be fair to have denied prior applicants the opportunity to build anything more than 9 or 16 and now allow someone to build at 143 units?  That would be totally inconsistent application of the city policies.

        It is unclear why the developer put together a proposal for such dense developement when he’d been given as much information as the record shows… The record for 2002, 2004, 2009 & 10 also shows the statement that when there is a conflict, the more restrictive policy applies.

        • Anonymous

          Good question.  Have any of the concerned citizens taken the time to ask the developer the same question before they “lawyered up”?  For some reason the City only put his Shoreline Permit up for public comment, and didn’t outright reject his Building Permit.  Such a vast difference in the number of units is too much of a disconnect for even the most aggressive developer, so I suspect he and the City know something the rest of us don’t about the interactions between all the  regulations and the resulting allowed usage.

          • Concerned Citizen

            Nice chatting with you.  That is a lovely piece of property and could be something very nice.  It could be something appealing looking and of a size that will compliment the neighborhood.

            Hopefully through the process we will see that happen.

            Best,

          • Anonymous

            I guess that would be  “no” to my question about working with the developer.  I hope it works out to everyone’s satisfaction in addition to the private attorneys’.

          • Concerned Citizen

            I believe that this part of an email to the city will express whether the developer has interest in working with the community. 

            If he changes his mind he can always present something like has been long planned and is in line with the Comprehensive Plan.  Zoning must implement the comprehensive plan and city approvals must implement the comprehensive plan.   

            It seems that what he sees as the best solution is not what has been considered the best solution for years.  Also seems that it is not the best solution according to an overwhelming response from those who live in Kirkland.
            …….

            From: moc.aciremahtapnull@gnasbol [mailto:moc.aciremahtapnull@gnasbol]
            Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:06 AM 
            Hello All,
             
            Thank you for the information, at this point there is no way we can change the building, we have been very accommodating to the surrounding neighborhood requirements. The design is the best solution for the neighborhood and the city.

          • Anonymous

            It still doesn’t look like any concerned citizens have tried to work directly with the developer, but rather have worked through the City to get them to accomodate their desires by pointing out as many potential code and plan violations as possible.  His email sounds like he’s frustrated.  If I was a developer I’d push back also if all that was done to work with me was to object through the City and find fine print to make the process time-consuming to the point of giving up.  Reminds me of Parkplace…

            There is no clearly defined ”best solution”; otherwise someone at the City would have told him long ago that 143 units, or anything close to that, would never be allowed.  Unfortunately attorneys and judges will now decide for all of us which parts of the Plan and Zoning will take precedence over each other.

            There’s an overwhelming response from those few who are vocal enough to object, but an underwhelming response from everyone else who lives in Kirkland who may be glad to see something/anything more appealing than an ugly vacant lot.

          • Concerned Citizen

            To your comment “the city would have told him long ago” that 143 units wouldn’t work, please request the presubmittal documents from the city. 

            The documents that were provided to applicant in 2009 and 2010 did communicate in writing the boundaries of what is allowed (and what isn’t).  Zoning, Comprehensive Plan specific to these parcels, and shoreline overlay information was provided.  The attached letter stated that where there are conflicts in policies, the most restrictive applies.

            He is likely frustrating himself by not listening or not reading what he’s been given on more than one occasion.

            If there is 10 mph printed on the street sign and someone decides to see if they can go 100 mph without getting stopped, it is not up to the city to remind this person about the written restriction.  Seems like the developer may have wanted to see if he could somehow go for the larger number in spite of the printed restrictions.

            Respectfully, I am done with this.  We will obviously continue to disagree. 

            I am hopeful that we get a nice neighborhood sized building and density as described in our city documents. All around the site are beautiful right-sized multi-family that have been profitable.

          • Anonymous

            Respectfully, too, I’m sure the attorneys are loving it.

            At the end of the day I want the developer to build within the regulations, but be allowed to do so to the maximum he desires within those so he can mazimize his ROI.

          • Neighborhood Advocate

            That a project of this scope & scale every made headway so far through Planning stinks.  Depending on who “wins”, you may get your wish for “something/anything more appealing than an ugly vacant lot”.  Obviously the property should be developed but there are many things worse than an “ugly vacant lot” for this neighborhood site – just drive up to Everett to see their similar but smaller project, in a commercial setting.    

          • Anonymous

            If it turns out the project can go forward with adjustments to comply with the Shorline permit and the BN zoning, then it would seem the barn door was left open a while ago when the lots were zoned that way, and the concerned citizens and neighborhood advocates are just now noticing.
            The surrounding multi-family lots have more restrictive zoning than BN, but that doesn’t mean this site has to convert to that now that the owner wants to develop it to BN.  I agree it would be more desirable, but it’s too late unless someone wants to buy out the owner in exchange for a downzone.
            None of the debate here will matter in the end.  Instead, the attorneys for the 4 formal appellants and the developer will drag the City through the mess at our expense, development and economic activity will slow even more as potential property owners walk away from a litigious population (recalling Lake & Central, BofA, and Parkplace too), and residents can all decry City Hall (with misplaced criticism) for doing nothing to foster economic development in Kirkland.  I can’t wait to see the complaints when the antique mall is redeveloped!
            Might as well put up gates so nobody else dares to change something.