The City of Kirkland, the developer proposing a large and controversial apartment project for the upscale Lake Street South area and angry neighbors will enter meditation talks Monday in an effort to resolve the conflict.
City Attorney Robin Jenkinson said city staff, developer Lobsang Dargey of Dargey Enterprises and members of a neighborhood group opposed to the “Potala Village” project -- along with their lawyers -- will meet Monday with mediators from the King County-managed Inter-Local Conflict Resolution Group. A second session is scheduled for Oct. 15.
“It looks positive,” Jenkinson said Thursday.
The mediation was suggested by City Manager Kurt Triplett, a former acting King County executive, and all sides have agreed to meet.
But it appears the neighbors and the developer will begin the talks on opposite sides of a long table. Two attorneys representing the neighbors and one member of the group STOP Potala kept up their steady drumbeat for lower residential density limits on the site at the Kirkland City Council's Tuesday night meeting.
The council had earlier asked the city Planning Commission to consider changes to the “BN” family of zoning designations last year after Dargey Enterprises filed for a state shoreline permit to build a 143-unit development, triggering an outcry from the neighbors. Twice the city has enacted moratoriums on issuing new building permits in the BN zone, prompting a lawsuit filed in May by Dargey Enterprises.
The council is expected to take action on the Planning Commission’s recommendations for density limits in the zoning designations known as “BN” (Neighborhood Business) and the similar “BC” at its next meeting, on Oct. 16. Currently the BN designation has no density limit.
The commission is recommending that density be restricted to 36 residential units per acre at the proposed Potala Village site, which is on two lots across 1.2 acres at the intersection of 10th Avenue South and Lake Street South. Neighbors are urging it be limited to 24 units per acre, as is recommended for two other locations in the BN family of zones, one on south Rose Hill and the other on Market Street.
Dargey Enterprises first proposed a complex with 143 units on the Lake Street site, later offering to reduce that to 110. But if the Planning Commission’s recommendation is approved by the council and applied to the Potala Village project, only some 40 units could be built on the site.
But the neighbors’ attorneys and one neighbor Tuesday urged the council to act right away to limit density at the Potala Village site to 24 units per acre like the other two areas, or less.
Attorney Brian Lawler noted that the state Growth Management Act, which requires updates every 10 years of municipalities' comprehensive plans, urged compatibility in zoning. “We feel they all need to be the same density, and not based on a ‘gut feel,’” he said.
The "gut feel" comment was a reference to a remark in an earlier meeting by the Planning Commission chairman that the Lake Street site recommendation was based to some extent on commission members’ general sense of compatibility with surrounding densities.
Lake Street resident Tom Grimm, a frequent speaker at city council meetings, was more blunt. “We don’t like what you’re planning to do,” he said. “We don’t want that foisted upon us.”
For more Kirkland Patch coverage of the Potala Village proposal, click here.
Over 90% of the opposition to the Potala project comes from people who are NOT "neighbors." They are from Finn Hill, Totem Lake, Juanita, Houghton, Medina, Clyde Hill, Bellevue, etc. People from all over the area recognize the beauty and pedestrian friendly ambience of Kirkland's signature waterfront boulevard and the damage that such high density development would do to this community asset. The CITY is the party on the hot seat here. Both the developer and the community are the victims of the Kirkland Planning Department's failure to implement a zoning code that was twice mandated by City ordinance when Comp Plan revisions were enacted in 1995 and 2004. As several City officials have publicly stated, "We never intended anything like this to ever happen on that property." We are all looking forward to finding creative solutions to extract ourselves from this unfortunate situation.
Did the City officials use the word "intended", or did they use "anticipated"? That's a very important distinction.
I'm witholding my name not because my comments aren't serious; they are quite serious. However, the leaders of STOP, and some of its members, make it very clear by their actions that they are are not interested in an alternative point of view, nor will they tolerate a message other than theirs. I can say that both from personal experience in my interaction with them, and also in what I observed with another person who also expressed support for Potala. I won't subject myself to that again with the STOP folks. I completely respect their concerns and points of view, but I have different ones. I'll ask again, though: If the opinions of people in Finn Hill, Totem Lake, Juanita, Medina, Clyde Hill, Bellevue, etc matter, then why does someone expressing support of the Potala development get angrily confronted and insulted, in part because they don't live nearby but instead in a Kirkland neighborhood closer than any of those? I'll add that I observed this same confrontational attitude directed at someone who lives within a block of the Potala site on Lake St. That sort of interaction doesn't engender a productive dialogue. It certainly does stifle dissent (which I'm sure is the intent), but reflects poorly on the group and its leaders as a result. And that makes them hard to take seriously.
1. The project covers three lots not two. (Although each parcel is zoned with setbacks, the City is considering letting Dargey have only 10-foot setbacks for the three-in-one, mega project footprint - instead of the setbacks for each of the three parcels being part of the final equation.) a. Parcel No. 935490-0220 (dry cleaner’s and hamburger joint) b. Parcel No. 935490-0240 (house on 10th Ave S behind dry cleaner’s and hamburger joint) c. Parcel No. 082505-9233 (vacant lot for which Dargey obtained a 99-year ground lease, from which his team has publicly admitted Dargey has an “out” if the project is unable to be built ) 2. The only plan Dargey has on file with the City is for 143 units. Not 110, not 100 – both of which he and his representatives have bandied about. He has also said he changed the name from Potala Village to Kirkland Aqua. He has said they will be condos, not apartments. At various times, Dargey has said the commercial space will be used for: 1) retail; 2) medical; 3) general office. Evidence proves that Lobsang Dargey has said, and will say, anything to try to get himself over whatever obstacle presents itself at any given moment to advance the project to the next level. Expediency trumps the truth here.
a. “In this case we have such a unique and extraordinary situation with this case which doesn’t make any sense to me in the first place how this place was zoned. I truly believe that there was never an intention to allow for unlimited density in zoning this property. I don’t believe the City intended to do it that way. I believe that this is what we discovered in this process. The moratorium is the ONLY opportunity we’re going to have to make a decision one way or the other – to weigh our risks, to weigh the long term impacts of this on our community. . . . I really believe that this was a mis-zoned piece of property.”
4. The “gut feel” comment to which Brian Lawler refers is from a direct quote from Planning Commission Chair Mike Miller, who gave the public some insight into what part of the anatomy is sometimes employed in making City zoning recommendations (and perhaps decisions) with which we all have to live. To give it context: Noting the anomaly and inquiring how the Planning Commission singled out the Lake St S/10th Ave S BN zone (Potala site) for a recommendation of 36 units/acre, while at the same time recommending 24 units/acre for the other two BN zones, and trying to ascertain what quantitative formula might have been used, Council Member Dave Asher asked Miller at the public Council Study Session September 18, 2012, “How did you arrive at the number 36?” Chairman Miller replied . . . “It was a gut feeling.”
It's not always comfortable to be identified with a particular opinion. I am willing to take that risk becuase anonyminity does dilute the credibility of a statement.
My take on it is that the City is growing in population, density and visitors to businesses with or without Potala, and much of that will use those streets for access. The additional 120 residences', and the retail businesses' traffic (assuming roughly 23 units are built instead of 143) will, in my opinion, be unnoticable compared to the current traffic volumes. I don't base that on any professional data or advice, just my own opinion (and it seems that the opposition doesn't have any better data supporting their position). They're not all going to travel at the same time, so I'd venture a guess that the 45 minutes turns into 50 or 55. Certainly not fun, but 45 isn't either. Outweighing that 10, or even 15 minutes of my time is removal of an eyesore; truly anything will be better than what's there now. I mean that. Any developer understands aesthetic appeal--he has to be able to sell and/or rent; The rest of our opinions of the aesthetic of the Potala's renderings are in the eye of each beholder. Traffic problems during construction will be a short term problem regardless of what is built there, and again, that temporary inconvenience is worth removal of an eyesore. I applaud your consent to taking the risk of being identified. If you'd been subjected to what I was because I dared to advocate in favor, you'd rethink it too.
I'm still wondering if I'm entitled to express my opnion even though it's different from STOP's, especially since I live closer than 6 of the 7 neighborhoods you cite for 90% of the people opposed to the project. Heck, 3 of those 7 neighborhoods aren't even in Kirkland. I would hope my opinion is at least more valued or respected than theirs.
My opinion is that the total traffic volume along Lake St/LWB is the relevant statistic, since the concern is traffic and time to get from 520 to Central. If the only vehicles using Lake St/LWB were those of residents from Carillon Pt to 3rd Ave S, then I'd concur with your opinion. I'd bet they are a small proportion of the total daily volume. The financial details aren't relevant to anyone but the developer and his investors. Let's leave it up to them to rent or sell the units they build. I appreciate your replies. I hope that means that my supportive opinion IS valid after all, even if you disagree with it.