Leavenworth approves controversial ordinance permitting condominiums in residential zones

LEAVENWORTH – City Council approved an ordinance to allow condominiums in residential zoning, following a contentious discussion between the council and members of the community.

“If I wasn’t able to buy my house that I did six years ago, I would be looking at a condo. It brings up a lot of emotions,” said Council member Shane Thayer.

Ordinance No. 1695 would permit dwellings within residential zoning districts to convert to condominiums under a binding site plan process, also known as common interest ownership. A provision was added to only permit condominium conversion if one or more of the condominium units were built after March 31, 2016.

The Aug. 13 meeting attracted nearly a full house of Planning Commissioners and community members in support of the ordinance. The ordinance did receive letters of opposition, as well as two virtually present community members expressing concerns about the ordinance favoring developers and wanting the city to prioritize city infrastructure and wildfire safety before approval.

“It's a very big tool that's too broad in the moment. MEND can do what it does, but we don't need to change the way we're doing the entire structure,” said community member Ann Crosby.

The conversation opened with council members Zeke Reister and Rhona Baron expressing concern that common interest ownership would not guarantee affordable housing, and could result in more second-homes. The idea of deed restrictions was proposed, but later abandoned due to the suggestion that deed restriction management is inefficient and costly.

Planning Commissioners and community members pushed back on the affordability argument, urging the council to consider the ordinance as a way to create more “middle housing” ownership options that could lower the barrier for first-time home buyers.

“I would urge the council to for divorce the idea of affordability from [Ordinance] 1695 completely because they don't have much to do with each other at all… It creates housing units that are purchasable at less of a price than single family housing units, and a lot of these are going to be infill housing, meaning they're houses that already exist,” said community member Simon Farivar.

Baron again brought up the need to regulate the appearance of the condominiums, which would be held to criteria listed under a binding site plan. Baron referred to public fears of more projects being built similar to the unpopular zero-lot line single family residences with attached accessory dwelling units (ADU) on Stafford Street.

“They look at stuff like that. They go, ‘Too high, not enough vegetation. Let's talk about the parking…I'm in favor of waiting and hearing from the community and balancing some of these things out. I'm not against it, but I think that there aren't enough things in place to protect and care and listen to the people that have not been happy, and I hate coming in here and having to be their voice,” said Baron.

Baron additionally referenced a conversation with her physical therapist in Wenatchee, who had said, “I know a lot of people want to move because they don't like what's happening.”

Others pushed back, with council members stating that concerns had been heard, but not always agreed with. Anne Hessburg suggested that code regulations are a separate issue, and should be assigned to the Planning Commission for future consideration.

“They're important things to think about, but that's not what this ordinance is about. So we need to pull it back to the reality of what we're talking about here, and not keep talking about other things. And I don't know if you're doing it consciously, but it's a tactic to create delay. So I don't think that that's a fair approach. Stay grounded in what the ordinance is about. That's the way you should address it as a councilmember,” said community member Kurt Peterson. 

Community member Celeste Peterson expressed additional frustration at Baron’s comments, adding, “We have a big crowd too, and we matter too.”

“Right now the people I’m talking to, and there's a whole load of them, do not want this to move forward tonight. It's not that they don't want it to happen, it's that they feel that it needs more time with the public and with the people that need to be heard because they're not being heard. And I don't appreciate any kind of attack on Rona. I think that's unfair,” said Council member Sharon Waters.

After a deeper discussion of listening while having differing opinions within the community and among fellow council members, the City Council proceeded to a vote. The majority was in favor, with Waters and Baron opposing.

“I’ve got reservations, huge ones, but I still think they are overridden by the amount of good this thing can do,” said Reister.

Taylor Caldwell: 509-433-7276 or taylor@ward.media