Comments on: DENIED! Bank of America plans reversed by Kirkland City Council vote of 4 to 3

By: Anonymity | Kirkland Views

Anonymity | Kirkland Views — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:07:08 +0000

[...] pose these questions because of the continued blowback surrounding the City Council’s May 6 decision in favor of CiViK (the appellant) over SRM Development (the applicant) in the Bank of America [...]

By: Flip Flop - Kirkland City Council modifies previous Bank of America decision | Kirkland Views

Wed, 21 May 2008 08:55:18 +0000

[...] yet another stunning turn of events, last night the Kirkland City Council reversed its previous decision to deny the Bank of America application by a vote of six to one. Council member Tom Hodgson was the [...]

By: The Ghost of Peter Kirk

The Ghost of Peter Kirk — Sat, 10 May 2008 06:17:56 +0000

I don’t want Kirkland to become like Bellevue, but 4-5 stories is nothing compared to the skyscrapers they are throwing up in that town. What are they, 25 stories? We need clearly spelled out limits, not this flexible stuff that the Kirkland council members can individually interpret however they feel like. The vote was pretty much along the usual lines - the progressives were outnumbered by the anti-development members.

By: anonymous2

anonymous2 — Fri, 09 May 2008 21:00:51 +0000

We all want a vibrant, active streetfront oriented downtown. None of us want retail to have the turnover it currently experiences. But indulge me with some unemotional facts if you would.

Retail needs people. People means density and parking. FACT: It takes 3,000 residential units within a 15 minute walk to support 1 block of retail.

Density and diversity of use are the keys to vibrant, active, and economically viable retail. And I’m not talking chain stores.

Density in and of itself is not evil. It can be executed in such a way as to be very atractive. 4-5 stories is hardly dense. It is barely minimal to achieve economic viability for street retail.

Diversity activates a street with office workers during the day and residents at night and on weekends. And, density/diversity mitigates the seasonality of our current retail clients.

You may want vibrant retail downtown without density/diversity and parking. But you may as well wish that gravity did not apply. It simply cannot happen, no matter how badly we want it to.

By: Builder

Builder — Fri, 09 May 2008 02:06:00 +0000

All good comments except the reference to Bellevue. Only problem with Bellevue is no public access to the waterfront. Vancouver is a beautiful city of high rise buildings. Kirkland is too small to have high rise, street grid is too small, 4-5 stories are not high rise.
But I digress.
Our population in Puget Sound will increase by 1.7M people in the next 30 years. We will need responsible development in core areas served by transit, employment, goods and services and utilities. Density preserves open spaces, drainage courses, farmlands, forest land, uses less energy, building materials, water etc.
Cities need to establish zoning criteria and stick to them. The Kirkland code tried to give flexibility in the downtown zone where it does not in other zones. Unfortunately it created a subjective process. Seattle established zoning heights and then relies upon design review to administer the modulation of the building, its fenestration, materials and colors. Kirkland needs to do the same. Developers need to be able to predict the size of the buildings in order to determine whether or not to build. It’s like buying a house not knowing whether or not your entire family will be allowed to live there. Who would do that?
No wonder we have a problem.
Superior retail for more floors? Ridiculous. Just establish the height and make sure all retail spaces are superior. Who wants inferior retail spaces even if the building is lower? They were trying to create incentives where they aren’t needed.
Retail uses. If the City is going to say which uses are “superior” we could be in for a long slide on a slippery slope. They clearly don’t like banks, what about real estate offices, tanning salons (don’t know how they contribute to anyone as no one buys anything there except some ultraviolet rays). What would be next? If four people (Council members) don’t like it then landlords don’t get a tenant?
Good comments on development and how it works or doesn’t where only two stories can be built. Park Lane as two stories will not be redeveloped. The development could never support the required parking- so if we like it the way it is, which alot of people do, then two story zoning will keep it that way. It will continue to be a quaint area with retail turnover.
Of course this all affects property values so the folks who bought property in these core areas are affected the most. Most of them probably thought if they buy in a great location in the heart of Kirkland their values would most certainly rise or at least do as well as other parts of the city. Not necessarily. Again, zoning.
Yes, the current comp plan needs some work to make it more clear. And the staff does its best with what it is given as does the Design Review Board. I think the Council should listen to the experts that they’ve enlisted to make decisions and judgements. The Council members are not design professionals, land planners, architects, urban planners…unless someone has been in night school lately…
Would you buy a property and not know whether you could build a 100 sf shed or a 10,000 sf house? We all need predictability. Then we wouldn’t have appeals.
I think Rob is right on. This one will get resolved and hopefully we’ll learn something.

By: Rob Butcher

Rob Butcher — Fri, 09 May 2008 00:01:26 +0000

Thank you to all for your comments. The exchange between ‘Carter’ and ‘do the math’ is an example of two sides stepping away from the brink and attempting to find compromise we can all live with. This is what we need more of in this town - finding common ground. Very good gentlemen (or gentlewomen).

Hopefully, all fair-minded individuals can agree on a few basic assumptions about development downtown. Let me take a crack at a list:
1. We can assume that the parties with opposing views from our own also want an economically vibrant and livable city as well
2. Kirkland maintains its small town charm with focus on pedestrians and human scale
3. We do not want downtown Kirkland to become another Bellevue
4. We do not want downtown Kirkland to be a dead zone which developers shun
5. We do not want downtown Kirkland to be a place where shops get boarded up and people do not want to live/browse/dine/play/recreate/gather
6. We do not want a situation in which citizens feel they must appeal development plans because they do not follow comp plans and city regulations
7. Development will not take place when there is high risk or great uncertaintay - Kirkland is high risk with great uncertainty
8. We do want to remove the high risk associated with developing downtown
9. If it is not economically feasible to build, it will not take place. For example, one story buildings along Lake Street may be your preference, but it is not feasible because the land costs are too high. Nothing will ever be developed and downtown will stagnate.
10. compromise and working together is the only way we can solve this mess

Right now developers would be crazy to risk money and time here. We all need this situation to be rectified. Those who want free reign to build anything they like need not apply in Kirkland. Try Bellevue instead. Those who do not want any development downtown are equally out of luck. Those are extreme positions and not realistic for downtown Kirkland. We need to be able to have sensible compromise on this issue. The extreme positions on both sides cannot prevail. The vast majority of us in the middle need to voice our opinions and fix this mess.

Let us all hope that from the ashes of the recent appeal of the B of A project, a solution will rise which will be acceptable for all fair minded individuals. Please let me know your thoughts. Am I off base? Did I omit something? Did I include too much? What say you?

Sincerely,
Rob Butcher

By: do the math

do the math — Thu, 08 May 2008 22:35:26 +0000

Well said. Maybe like to info sessions for Parkplace, we could all debate it in the KPC so that each side might better understand the other, then compromises can begin.

By: Carter

Carter — Thu, 08 May 2008 20:32:00 +0000

To “Do The Math” I would like to sincerely apologize about the reference to “shills.” It was tacky of me to choose that term, especially given that I don’t believe blogs should be used for name-calling, but rather for intelligent discussion.

Perhaps my indiscretion points to a key problem with this entire issue … that being that it’s highly charged with emotion on both sides. And, in part, that emotion probably stems from a lack of understanding, plenty of misinformation, and the tendency (at least on my part) to lump all developers into a single BAD category. I have worked in Bellevue for many years and almost want to cry when I see how development is destroying this city. Huge ugly skyscrapers are popping up everywhere, many of them built by out-of-town developers who couldn’t possibly care less about what local residents think, and many of the condos are purchased by out-of-town speculators, who again don’t really care about community impact. So, someone like me sees Intended Use notices going up in Kirkland, and the first thought is “Oh my God, here come those greedy developers to now reek havoc in our community.” Is that fair? Probably not. Is it cause for concern? Probably yes, because constructing 4-5 stories all along Lake Street will have a dramatic (and in my view, detrimental) effect on the look and feel of our downtown area.

And you are correct in saying that I have no idea what it’s like to live in your shoes. Having no experience running a retail establishment, I can only imagine how the lack of shopper traffic during the off months must keep you awake at nights. Let’s both hope that a compromise position can be reached. We definitely DO need redevelopment in Kirkland, but let’s hope it can be “reasonable,” whatever that may mean. Many concerned residents could probably live with three stories … but again, most of us don’t truly understand the economic feasibility issues, which is a big part of the problem.

By: do the math

do the math — Thu, 08 May 2008 03:54:57 +0000

First off, I truly resent the “shills” comment, as I might too appear to a stranger on a blog as pro- development, but I am simply a struggling business owner who would like to work only 6 days a week to make ends meet, you people have no idea what it takes to survive these winters!
I wasn’t thrilled with the 5th floor of B of A but at 4 floors, it seemed a decent enough building, and I hate looking at the current one, so a net gain of aesthetics. But if you really think that Lake St can be redeveloped at 2 stories, you are living in the 80’s. Let’s say you’re McLeod and you have 2 properties worth $15-20 million combined. You can’t get that much more out of the property without a hugely expensive parking garage under it, and in the end, you will be collecting $50 per square foot on 50K sq ft instead of the current 130K. That difference is the whole reason the other side of the street looks like crap. It’s not going to make a landlord money to make a nice building, so they’ll just raise rents on what is by today’s standard, slummy retail.

By: The Ghost of Peter Kirk

The Ghost of Peter Kirk — Thu, 08 May 2008 03:31:05 +0000

Two stories isn’t economically feasible, so redevelopment won’t happen, which is exactly what a lot of citizens want.

As for the DRB trying to fit this project into the Comp Plan or any other regulations, that is their job! They tell the applicant what to do to make the project acceptable to them, the applicant makes changes and comes back, and eventually they work it out. It took 3 meetings, if I recall correctly.

In that vein, I thought the worst that the Council would do to the applicant would be to send it back to the DRB for more work. That was their third option, and that is typical of how the Council deals with issues.