Another midnight session at Kirkland City Council brought more drama to long battles over downtown redevelopment and annexation.

The City Council both delayed making a final decision on annexation and reopened the Bank of America/Merrill Gardens (BofA) project appeal at its May 20 meeting. The Council was expected to officially back an appeal of the BofA redevelopment project (at Lake Street and Kirkland Avenue) after discussing the issue on May 6, but gave the project new life by reopening the hearing and delaying a decision.

The Council had planned to vote on a resolution to back up an initial 4-3 vote in favor of the appeal by Citizens for a Vibrant Kirkland (CiViK), but a series of letters by the applicant, SRM Development, took center stage instead. Two days before city staff produced their findings on May 15, SRM attorney Molly Lawrence issued an appeal of her own, asking the Council to delay a decision until the developer could make modifications based on council-member concerns.

“(DRB) have been working diligently with its architect to develop an alternative design that more closely meets the Council’s intent,” Lawrence said in a letter.

Following the May 6 hearing, SRM Development manager Andy Loos indicated plans for a four-story development did exist, and he would consider making changes. The Council’s primary objection to the proposal related to a fifth story of “superior retail.”

In response, CiViK attorney J. Richard Arambaru urged the Council to dismiss the letter, saying the hearing had been closed to any further testimony. CiViK, however, submitted further testimony of its own, issuing a point-by-point rebuttal of 18 of the city’s “Findings and Conclusions” on the issue.

The four Council members who voted in favor of the appeal at the last meeting, Jessica Greenway, David Asher, Tom Hodgson and Jim Lauinger, debated how to continue the hearing.

“I’m confused. I don’t know where to go with the request from the applicant,” Greenway said.

While the three who voted against the appeal sat silently, city attorney Robin Jenkinson and city manager David Ramsay answered at least a dozen requests for guidance as the majority spent over an hour discussing reopening the appeal.

Councilman Tom Hodgson objected to considering any additional information.

“To keep this going indefinitely is unfair to either side,” Hodgson said. “I think we owe closure on this issue … I think we need to do our job, honor that process and render that decision.”

Lauinger disagreed.

“(We could) continue the hearing if we feel that it is material that is pertinent that we need to be looking at,” he said.

Discussing the SRM proposal, Asher distanced himself from his May 6 vote to deny the project.

“We want to end up with something that meets the requirements,” Asher said. “I’m looking for a way to get there … Do we start all over and do we start this whole process? I just don’t see a whole lot of productivity in that.”

Asher wasn’t the only Council member willing to reconsider previous comments. At the May 6 meeting Hodgson questioned whether the Design Review Board (DRB) need exist at all. But last week he recommended the city move quickly to fill the empty positions on the DRB, saying the project-review process should be left to the board. He said to do otherwise would step beyond the Council’s responsibilities.

“I don’t think we’re doing our job here tonight,” he said.

“I don’t think we’ve deviated from the original options before us,” Asher responded.

After reopening the hearing on a 6-1 vote (with Hodgson in the minority), the Council asked the parties to work together on a compromise. Lawrence agreed, with the condition that the Council define its concerns and give SRM an opportunity to respond to the findings. Arambaru agreed to meet and requested a hearing with the DRB, but complained the process would be a “shotgun wedding.”

“CiViK would like a decision,” he said.

After securing an agreement from the two groups, Asher again reiterated his belief that something could be salvaged from the process. If not, he said the project would likely spend the next two years in either Superior Court or going through the entire process again as a new proposal.

“I think we’re close to a superior product on that corner. I think we’re close to something that Kirkland could be proud of,” he said.

The Council tabled a definitive decision on the project until its next meeting on June 3.

ANNEXATION

The Council also continued a debate from last month on how to proceed with the Potential Annexation Area (PAA).

In April, the Council had informally voted 4-3 against putting annexation on the ballot, citing budget concerns. It brought the issue to its regular session last week to make a final, formal decision to kill the issue. But some Council members expressed concern that such an action was premature given that the budget process won’t be completed until the end of the year.

“We need more time to have this conversation,” Councilwoman Joan McBride said.

Council members Bob Sternoff, McBride and Mary-Alyce Burleigh had supported annexation in the April vote, but last week Burleigh sought a formal release for the PAA so the neighborhoods of Finn Hill, Kingsgate and Juanita could seek other municipal suitors.

“The longer we delay, at the end of the day, we’ve not given these cities enough time,” she said. “It’s taken us three years to get to this point … It’s up to us to release them.”

A motion to continue looking at annexation passed 5-2, with Greenway and Burleigh opposed.

“I think it would only be prudent to continue,” Lauinger said.