Bellevue has done an incredbile job of turning an uninviting, pedestrian unfriendly place into a triving community. Obviously, tall skyscrapers are not appropriate for downtown Kirkland but netiher are dilapidated buildings and run-down strip-malls. I think there is a viable middle-ground and the DRB was working hard toward that. Although I think redevelopment is mandatory for Totem Lake it would be a shame if the heart of Kirkland moved to there.

I don’t know about the DRB being responsible for enforcing zoning but they should be responsbile for more than the selection of paint colors.

It’s good to see the KCC has had a change of heart but I’m not sure what this means. They’ve tabled the decision? Now what? A compromise? That’s exactly what the DRB did — negotiate a compromise for the public good. Who decides? The KCC? Is the KCC now going to review all designs? What a mess they’re created, arrghhh…

IMHO, DBA paid too much attention to desing, and not enough to making sure it matched the Comp PLan. That is the issue the city council had.

It is a beautiful desing and much improved over the eyesore there now. But the KCC has important concerns as to whether it met the comp plan. This is not “Zoning’ as Butcher states, but adhereing to the overall plan the businesses, city leaders and residents have set for downtown.

And even with that, I disagree that DRB doesn’t need to enforce zoning. That is very much a part of their role in working wiht developers to create plans that meet zoning, or require minimal variances, are aesthetically pleasing, safe and functional…AND meet with the over all plan. The plans are there for a purpose. Sometimes I feel people forget that!

Seems Jessica Greenway is content wiht us being small town..i.e. MEdina, per her comment in tonight’s city council meeting. City Council also needs to get real and work better wiht developers or no building under eight stories will be viable just from the sheet costs of working with our sometimes less than knowledgable, often less than courageous KCC!

The 70k number is what the city will be after annexation takes place. Most likely not this year, thanks to poor budgeting/management, and perhaps not on the same scale, but it will eventually take place. It’s part of Kirkland’s Comprehensive Plan and the regional GMA.

Either way, the point about not being a very small town is valid. Folks need to realize that if they keep meddling in thoughtful development of downtown, Kirkland could eventually find itself with a “main street” not unlike Bellevue, where the developers have effectively moved the “heart” of what was old Bellevue and main street by developing else where. Will Kirkland have a “NE 8th” style relocation of it’s heart? Totem Lake or maybe along 85th near Costco? It could happen.

Like it or not, Kirkland needs some density in it’s downtown if it’s going to thrive. The DRB is in place to make sure it’s thoughtfully and creatively done so as to maintain and enhance character. The City Council does not have the expertise to determine the nuances of good development. The council’s job is to provide leadership and vision, not micromanage according to the whims of special interest groups.

Have the DRB make judgement calls that are overturned, of course not. But to hear the incoherent comments from some of the City Council who know nothing about design talking about what constitutes “superior” retail is laughable. As the saying goes, “you get the government you deserve. ”

Having extremely explicit design guidelines is another way to go. Many vanilla communities have tried that. Specifying what colors are and are not acceptable. And that’s what you get. No creativity. Oh yeah, we already had that and you get things like the Portsmith. The reason the DRB was created in the first place. But the building in front of the Portsmith is only two stories. Whew, that was close…. It was almost out-of-human-scale…

The whole point was that the DRB was able to make some trade-offs like they did with the BofA building developer. They encouraged the builder to design some great amenities for the community with lots of public space and in return they could get a fifth “residential” floor that made the building only one foot taller than a four story office building! Wow, we really need to reign in on that…

Kirkland has 70K residents. That’s not a very small town. And we’re right at the heart of the developed region. CIVIK seems to want Kirkland to be like Langley, Washington. I like Langley but the rents in Langley are probably a tenth of what they are here. You can’t make it with that kind of retail in a town like Kirkland. This is not a tourist destination. It’s a bedroom community to Microsoft, Amazon, Boeing, Starbucks, Amgen, Philips Medical, Siemens Medical, Google (more like a loft).

I want Kirkland to retain the good characteristics. That doesn’t mean no growth.

I realize the neighborly thing to do is give people the benefit of the doubt that they’re acting with everyones best interest at heart. However, members of CIVIK didn’t do that when they appealed the decision of the DRB. Even though DRB meetings were public forums with community input that CIVIK participated in, they apparently felt that after months of public deliberations the DRB did not act responsibly for the public good. Nor did Councilman Tom Hodgson when he stated, “What’s right for the intent and spirit of downtown was pretty much pushed aside” and “I’m hearing… through this whole process from the very start it looked like the ‘five story project’ that came in and we are going to find a way to make it fit. Not from the ground up, but from the fifth floor down.” Again, Councilman Hodgson didn’t seem to believe the DRB was acting responsibly for the public good. It appears from his statements villifying the DRB that he believes the DRB had a hidden agenda to deceive the public in some way.

So, should I trust CIVIK and the City Council members they support when they don’t reciprocate and trust their advisory boards are acting for the public good!

The reason campaign contributions are capped is to limit the influence of special interest groups. However, when 25% of ones campaign war chest comes from one group, that bears scrutiny. CIVIK took extreme measures to get their way. What makes them and the City Council members they support beyond reproach? Especially when I listen to the incoherent ramblings of some City Council members trying to manufacture a reason to overturn the DRBs decision in favor of the appeallant — their campaign supporters. Doh!

With repspect to the BofA building, I perceived the DRB actions to be in the interest of the public good. They avoided caving to special interest groups. The DRB got the developer to design in bigger set-backs and step-ups (particularly on Kirkland Avenue where they weren’t required by code), extremely wide sidewalks with multiple pedestrian features including opening up the corner with an added water feature, the elimination of two out of three automobile sidewalk cut-outs, and, yes, “superior retail.” I simply don’t buy the argument that just because a bank (almost half it’s present size) is a tenant in one out of four retail spaces that means the developer didn’t provide “superior retail.” That to me is what I refer to as a “manufactured reason.” And what did the DRB trade off for all that? a fifth residential floor stepped back that represents only 45% lot coverage. The developer could build a four story office building with “standard” retail, set-backs to code and little in the way of pedestrian interest and it would only be one foot shorter!!!