Save Manning’s group responds to landmark suit

The group that’s worked hard to save the Denny’s building from demolition has sent My Ballard a letter responding to Benaroya Company’s lawsuit. Save Manning’s calls it an “obvious scare tactic” that’s designed to influence the administrative appeal process. “It’s one thing to try to overturn the Board’s decision. It’s another to go after the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance itself,” reads the letter. “The attack on the ordinance is a vindictive action by those who feel a great sense of entitlement. Rather than braying about how they’ve been ‘injured’ from an economic standpoint or deprived of their ‘rights,’ why not use their seemingly endless energy and resources to propose a win-win solution—one that preserves the building (not as a boarded up Denny’s but as a rehabilitated building), allows for an economically viable new development, and enhances the neighborhood? We have repeatedly shown there is a feasible alternative to demolition.”

The letter continues, “Save Manning’s is not anti-development. We are for sensitive and appropriate new development within the context of Ballard and Seattle’s existing built environment…. Let this decision stand; it was made thoughtfully, appropriately and legally.” The full letter follows below…

Read More

Benaroya sues to challenge Denny’s vote

The Benaroya Company has filed suit in King County Superior Court to challenge the Landmark Preservation Board’s vote to designate the Ballard Denny’s building as a historic landmark. The lawsuit aims to reverse the board’s decision. “The boarded up former Denny’s is not an important historic or architectural building, nor the work of a significant architect,” said Marc Nemirow, spokesman for Benaroya, in a press release emailed to My Ballard. “The landmark board agreed with these conclusions, but incredulously decided to designate the building a landmark anyway. This action isn’t legal.” Crosscut’s Knute Berger writes that the lawsuit “alleges, among other things, that the Landmarks Board action is ‘illegal and erroneous,’ that it violated procedure, and that it violated the owner’s constitutional rights.”

Meanwhile, Nemirow says Benaroya will move forward with the administrative process and “assist the board in a proper evaluation of the economic impacts of its decision.” We’ll post reaction from the building’s supporters as soon as we get it. The press release announcing the lawsuit follows below…

Read More

Board votes 6-3 to landmark Denny’s building

After over two hours of presentations, comments and debate in front of a standing-room only crowd, the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board voted 6-3 to designate the exterior of the Ballard Denny’s a city landmark. “I’m very surprised,” said Allan Michelson, who spoke out in favor of saving the Denny’s. “I couldn’t tell which way there were going. It was tortuous.” Before the vote, many of the board members admitted they were “on the fence.” The building “has a hard time crossing the integrity threshold,” board member Ronald Martinson said. Christine Howard said she was “struggling with the integrity.” But board member Stephen Lee (on the right below) led the charge in favor of saving the building. “To me this building bookends Ballard and still has enough integrity,” he said, noting that he lives nearby.

After ten minutes of discussion — which followed a lengthy presentation by land owner Benaroya Companies as well as public comment — the board reluctantly took it to a vote. Martinson and Howard were among the six board members who ended up voting in favor.

John McCullough, the attorney hired by Benaroya and Rhapsody, made it clear after the vote that they’re weren’t done fighting. “The issue is not to build on the remaining property,” he told the surrounding media (photo below). “The issue is what the land owner paid for (it).”

McCullough said the next step is to show that the board’s decision “deprives the property owner of economic use of the site,” which goes to the Hearing Examiner and ultimately the Seattle City Council. When asked about an alternative plan suggested by Grace Architects that would incorporate the restaurant along with the same number of condos (below), McCullough said it’s “highly unlikely to obtain the 125-foot rezone” that the plan would require.

Meanwhile, a group of Denny’s supporters who gathered down the hallway after the vote proclaimed they were ready for the next stage of the fight. “There will be plenty of opportunity to rehabilitate the building effectively and make it an integral part of the community,” Michelson said, who’s the head of the architecture library at the UW. “With minimal effort,” he added.

The room was packed for the board session. Only a small handful of the public who addressed the board spoke out in opposition of landmarking the building. One of them was Ken Alhadeff, the owner of Majestic Bay Theatres. “If you choose to designate, you must be part of the solution,” he told the board. “And then what? What’s the next step? Who will restore it? What will it be?”

Our minute-by-minute coverage of the meeting follows below…

Read More