Letter to the Editor – Downtown Property Owners Concerned About Zoning
Dear Editor,
The following letter was sent to the Kirkland City Council on November 21, 2008:
Kirkland City Council
123 5th Avenue
Kirkland, WA 98033
RE: Downtown Zoning
The Downtown Kirkland Commercial Property Owners are extremely concerned about the potential changes the City is considering making to the downtown zoning code. For example, the change to increase the width of the sidewalks from 10′ to 13′ (12′ minimum) will, in effect, substantially reduce the building envelope for all new development projects in the downtown area. Changing the retail building height from 13 to 15′ will add unnecessary costs to new commercial construction. The 10′ view corridor with 20′ width on second stories on the west side of Lake Street will further reduce the redevelopment potential for the effected properties. The 30′ setback for the bonus floor, or the combo/FAR approach to set backs, is much more complex and greater than is necessary – and an approach that could be inviting appeals.
The original intent of the interim zoning ordinance was to restrict develop in the CBD while the Council defines changes to these zoning regulations to resolve the ambiguity in the current code. These existing problems include the definition of superior retail, the set backs for upper floors of buildings above the second floor and the building heights directly front Lake Street.
We believe the proposed changes do not clearly accomplish this goal and they far exceed the original intent of the interim ordinance. Furthermore we believe these proposed changes, if adopted, will stop all potential redevelopment in the CBD beyond the few remaining opportunities sites. If changes such as these are adopted, it will further downzone and restrict the development potential of all downtown Kirkland commercial properties and will, we feel, result in all the old existing legacy buildings not being redeveloped for the foreseeable future.
We urge the Council to consider the commercial property owner’s opinion and the City’s best interest in allowing financially viable commercial development.
As a test of these proposed zoning code changes, we suggest that the City apply them to selected parcels; like a property on Kirkland Avenue, properties on the south side of Central with one parcel facing the Lakeshore Plaza, properties on both sides of Lake Street and at least one property on Park Lane – to clearly understand the impact of the proposed changes. We recommend having a commercial developer’s input in this exercise as a reality check. We think you will find with the proposed changes, all legacy building sites will not be financially feasible to redevelop.
We think the proposed zoning code changes far exceed the original intent of the interim ordinance and are not in the best long term interests of downtown Kirkland.
Sincerely
The Downtown Kirkland Commercial Property Owners Group
Joe Castleberry
Andy Loos
Bill Woods
Bill Corbett
Bonnie Lindberg
Bonnie Mcleod
Brooke Stabbert
Brian Leibsohn
Carl Hossman Jr
Craig Shriner
Don Holt
Don Stabbert
Doug Davis
George Lakman
Gerald Ostroff
Jann Castleberry
Jay Fulton
Jim Tosti
Joel Ostroff
John Strauss
Kiri Rennaker
Larry Knudsen
Marilyn Dillard
Matt Aatai
Mike Connolly
Mike Nelsen/Nelsen Properties
Mimi Rosen
Neole Miller
Patty Brandt/ Lois Meyers
Rick Chaffey
Rich Drottz
Robert Avery
Stan Rosen
Steve Panos
Steve Shinstrom
Steven Suskin
Staurt Mcleod
Terry Rennaker
Tim Panos
Posted by Rob Butcher on Sunday, November 23, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Filed under Letters · Tagged with City Council, Development, Downtown, Letters, Zoning
Print This Article
Related Stories:
|
|
|
|
|
Didn’t the mayor make promises that he wouldn’t overreach with zoning changes. He promised only changes to remove confusion in zoning is what i heard he said at a meeting with the business community last month.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And you still believe the Mayor and his “Gang of Four”?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Where did the council get these ideas? Are they acting as city planners on their own? Here is what the mayor told me when I asked what was being amended (back when the moratorium first hit):
We will seek to amend only how decisions are made currently via the Design Review Board. I anticipate no change to what development gets or can get in height or mass…only the process and definitions of how this is done.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The sad thing is that the appeal process will likely still be used by NIMBYs and other no-growth advocates. The only difference will be the code sections that the appeal will be based on. The underlying problem of Council bias toward those living in the past especially those who helped to get them elected still exists. I believe fewer project opponents would incur the legal expense of an appeal if they believed that the Council stood strongly behind the work of the DRB.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
…and people would be more willing to serve on the Design Review Board, the Planning Commission, and other boards and commissions if they felt that their decisions carried weight. The fact that the Council feels that they must make every decision is getting a little old.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0