Zoning issues, by their nature, are usually challenging and contentious. That's certainly true in the Market neighborhood, where a proposed zoning change has generated a large amount of opposition.
Once a year, during September, the city allows, at no fee, Private Amendment Requests to the Kirkland Comprehensive Plan. In the Market neighborhood, eight people put forward a zoning request, which affects a total of 39 properties; these abut an additional 26 properties.
The proposed zoning change is from SF-72 to PR-36. In translation, this means from single-family homes situated on lots 7,200 square feet in size or greater, to professional office/residential, with a lot size requirement of 3,600 square feet.
The request affects properties from the 1800 block of Market Street and runs roughly three blocks north.
That may not seem like such a dramatic change. But Perry Maddux, a real estate agent who lives in the Market neighborhood, said the change is more drastic than the code suggests. If the rezone were granted, a variety of businesses would be allowed in addition to more residential units. Offices, grocery stores, restaurants and taverns would be permitted, among others.
"It doesn't sound too bad on paper," Maddux said. "But the character of this single-family neighborhood could change dramatically."
The proposal initially flew under the radar. But by last December the word was out. Maddux said that during a Market Neighborhood Association meeting that month 49 people voted against the proposal. No one voted for it. "Usually 10 or so people show up to these meetings. But people were upset to learn about this proposal," he said.
Additionally, a recent petition requesting that the rezone amendment be denied gathered 140 signatures and was sent to the City Council on April 22. It highlights, among several points, that 31 property owners affected were not party to the zoning request and were not informed that the request had been made. It also states that the proposed amendment requests "are in direct conflict with the goals, policies and provisions of the Kirkland Comprehensive Plan."
Karl Volkie, another Market neighborhood resident involved in reacting to the zoning request, said that property values will be lost if the change is approved. The change would benefit mostly older homes. It would be unfair financially, he said, to many new homeowners.
"The people who purchase properties here do so with the expectations that this single-family neighborhood would remain so," he said. "People could end up stuck with a home that is less valuable because it ends up next to a restaurant or business."
Volkie said that he and the group working to defeat the change are not against growth.
"This is not a case of NIMBY-ism," he said. "But we favor in-fill consistent with current zoning, which is already recommended in the city's Comprehensive Plan. It makes an odd mix of different zoning in the neighborhood."
Maddux was also disappointed that rules during city work group meetings to discuss the changes did not allow the neighborhood to comment on the proposal. "The applicants could participate and we were not allowed to," Maddux said.
Volkie added that because there was no cost to put forward the request the city had to use its own resources to respond to it. While he did not describe the request as frivolous, he thought a fee should be imposed to discourage irresponsible zoning requests.
"It's been months already, and this process could run through December 2006. People here are in some limbo until the issue is settled," he said.
That limbo will remain for at least the next three months. A May 19 Planning Commission meeting is scheduled to allow for public comment. By June 23, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to city staff. In July, the commission will make a recommendation to the Kirkland City Council. The City Council's decision, when it makes it, is likely to follow that recommendation.
Maddux said the hope was simple: that the City Council will simply make a decision to drop the request and stop working on it.
"We really don't want this to be approved," he said. "And I hope the city looks at this process more carefully in the future. This has cost everyone a great deal of time and money."[[In-content Ad]]
