LETTER | BN Zoning Mess - Simply Add a (1) Suffix and it's corrected

Dear Editor:

This is a very simple answer to a very complex problem.  What is useful is that it fulfills the request of the developer's attorney (see below).

In the past when it was determined that zoning did not fully implement the Comprehensive Plan, the city chose a very simple and straightforward method of ensuring that there would be no misunderstanding.  For the South Rose Hill BN zone the City Council added a (1) suffix.  BN(1) then required that any development must meet all of the goals and policies of the neighborhood plans and be reviewed under process IIA as to whether that goal was met.  Here's a link to Ordinance # 3538 that prevented any future misunderstanding http://docs.cityofkirkland.net/webdrawer/webdrawer.dll/webdrawer/rec/5392/view/Adopting%20new%20zoning%20map.PDF

A few years later there were other areas discovered where zoning text had not yet caught up with the Comprehensive Plan.  Again there were suffixes added and a thorough review process was required.  Ordinance # 3747 did that.http://docs.cityofkirkland.net/webdrawer/webdrawer.dll/webdrawer/rec/5604/view/Amending%20City%20Map%20to%20Conform%20to%20Comprehensive%20Plan.%20%20Lake%20Washington%20Blvd..PDF

Even without a suffix, the BN property on Lake St S was always held to both zoning and plan standards and allowed no more than 12 dwellings per acre.  City records show that as recently as a couple years ago a proposal was denied because a small building with few units surpassed that limit.  City records also show the current developer was given presubmittal materials stating that the neighborhood plan "specifically applies to subject property" then highlighting the 12 units per acre in yellow so as not to be missed.

If the city's work highlighting the applicable plan in yellow is not enough to catch the attention of developers, perhaps the addition of a (1) suffix would work.

The applicant's attorney is asking that the Lake Street BN property not be treated differently than the South Rose Hill BN property.  If you make both BN properties BN(1) that would affirmatively meet her request.

Sincerely, Karen Levenson