Information and FAQ
Current State
Following extensive environmental review, the City is preparing to issue a decision on the application to demolish the Masonic home and other buildings on the property now owned by Zenith Properties LLC. While demolition is not an outcome many in this community hoped for, the City must follow the law when it comes to applications for development on private property, whether they are submitted by a homeowner or a developer.
The City acknowledges demolition would have a significant environmental, historic and cultural impact on the community. The City has spent the last 3 years working with independent environmental consultants to ascertain the impacts and evaluate the available options.
The City has also made significant efforts to promote preservation.
History
Since the property known as Landmark on the Sound was put on the market in 2013, the City has made significant efforts to facilitate preservation and redevelopment of the main structure in the best interests of city residents.
City staff met with multiple potential buyers with the goal of preservation and reuse. While some potential investors were interested in preservation, all found it to be financially infeasible and declined to pursue it. Potential redevelopment efforts included:
- 2009: The Masons sought to rehabilitate the building for assisted living units, but determined it was financially infeasible.
- 2014: Palace Construction planned to develop a casino/cardroom and tourism center. Palace terminated the project due to the high financial cost of remodeling the facility.
- 2015-2017: Fall Development explored a single-family residential development, but abandoned the project.
- 2017-2019: Urban Work Lofts explored remodeling the building into live/work lofts. The project was deemed infeasible due to the cost of rehabilitation of the existing structure.
- The City worked with state legislators to explore possible preservation strategies and investigated the Federal Historic Tax Credit and the State Special Tax Valuation programs. None provided a feasible path to preservation and long-term maintenance.
In addition McMenamin's looked at the property for possible restoration and reuse but ultimately declined to invest in the project.
To date, no community or historical preservation organization has found a feasible strategy and/or funding for preservation.
The Masons concluded preservation was not feasible and applied to the City for a demolition permit. In 2019, the Masons sold the property to the current owners, who assumed the demolition permit application.
FAQ
The site is eligible for historic preservation status. Why hasn’t the City pursued this?
The City has never had the funding to purchase the property, but it has pursued preservation to the extent possible with the staff and funding it has. This has included courting potential buyers, including the McMenamins restaurant/hotel chain, and exploring state and local funding. None of these efforts provided a path that was within the City’s ability to execute.
How has the City involved the community in this issue?
Community members have participated in multiple opportunities for comment and involvement.
- Public comment periods on the draft EIS included:
- May 3-June 2, 2022
- July 27-August 25, 2022
- Jan. 9-Feb. 22, 2024 (Draft EIS)
- Jan. 31, 2024 public meeting
- 314 letters, emails and verbal statements were collected from residents during the draft EIS process, generating 728 distinct comments or questions.
- Based on public comments on the Draft EIS, the City conducted additional analysis on historic preservation options.
Why doesn’t the City require Zenith Properties to tell the public their ultimate plan for the property before granting the demolition permit?
The law does not require private property owners to divulge potential future development plans when applying for a demolition permit. This is true for a homeowner tearing down a detached garage, just as it is for a developer. The City cannot compel a property owner to share their plans or to create plans if they do not have them. Zenith Properties has not provided the City with information on a future development; however, no future development can proceed without City approval. It is likely any future City permitting process would include public input.
Why did the City remove the Masonic Home’s designation as a site of historical significance when the owner applied for a demolition permit?
The City was required to remove the City’s designation at the request of the property owner, per City code (DMMC 18.215.070(4)).
What rights does the private property owner have?
The law limits the government's authority to dictate what private property owners can do on their land. Zoning, environmental regulations, the permitting process and other laws prevent or mitigate impacts on the community. However, once those requirements have been met, City government cannot legally restrict how owners use their property. This is true for homeowners who want to put an addition on their house or landscape their yard, just as it is for developers.
Why hasn’t the City purchased the property?
While the City has supported preservation and reuse, it has never had the funds to purchase the property, even with available subsidies and incentives.
Why can’t the City use eminent domain to take possession of this site?
Eminent domain allows the government to take private property for public use, as long as just compensation is paid to the property owner. The City would be required to pay fair market value for the property. The City does not, and has not had, sufficient funds to pay for the property or the funds to renovate and maintain it as a public space. The estimated value of the property is $15 million, and the total costs to address structural, seismic, and envelope deficiencies are estimated at between $67.2 and $78.4 million as of 2024.
Why isn’t the City Council voting on the demolition permit?
Like other cities, the responsibility for approving permits for construction or demolition on private property falls to City staff. In municipal government, the role of the City Council is to set laws and policy, and the role of staff is to carry out those policies on a day-to-day basis.
Who did the EIS report? Who hired them, who pays them? Are they neutral?
The EIS was conducted by ESA Environmental Consultants, an independent firm that provides a range of environmental services. Through a process prescribed by the state, the City hires the consultant, and the cost of work is paid by the property owner who applied for the permit.
This process is set up to ensure that the consultant provides an independent, science-based report and solutions.
What is the process to appeal the EIS?
The EIS and the City’s permit decision may be appealed under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (RCW 43.21C.075) and the Des Moines Municipal Code (DMMC 16.05.320).
Appeals must be submitted in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days of the City’s decision.
Why didn’t the Masons register the building on the National Registry?
The City cannot speak for the Masons. What we know is that the Masons did not apply for Historic Registry designation before they put the property up for sale and that they subsequently applied for a demolition permit in 2019.
What is the Mason’s position on demolition of the structure?
The Masons originally sought a buyer who would preserve the structure but ultimately concluded that preservation and reuse was not financially feasible. The Masons provided a comment letter in the Draft EIS supporting demolition.