Comments on: Should view preservation become the new standard by which development is opposed in Kirkland? http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/05/15/should-view-preservation-become-the-new-standard-by-which-development-is-opposed-in-kirkland/ Kirkland's Blog for News and views on life in the City of Kirkland, Washington Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:57:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: ticked off http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/05/15/should-view-preservation-become-the-new-standard-by-which-development-is-opposed-in-kirkland/#comment-178 ticked off Mon, 09 Jun 2008 06:48:13 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=93#comment-178 It's scary the amount of power that the Planning Commissioners have regarding the height limits on our buildings. Basically it is up to their discretion whether or not they will allow a variance. They have already approved a 5 story building downtown Kirkland, one of which is Merrill Gardens and guess how far they allowed the buffer between the two buildings? 23-28ft!!! Only one of the members, Brian, in the architectural committee who seems to be the most qualified on that committee (or cares the most) suggested 40ft minimum for light and air quality but the others did not agree. If one of them had any personal interest in the any of the buildings that was affected by the Merrill Gardens project, you bet the outcome would be different. I'm tired of such a small group making permant decisions for the residents of Kirkland. It’s scary the amount of power that the Planning Commissioners have regarding the height limits on our buildings. Basically it is up to their discretion whether or not they will allow a variance. They have already approved a 5 story building downtown Kirkland, one of which is Merrill Gardens and guess how far they allowed the buffer between the two buildings? 23-28ft!!! Only one of the members, Brian, in the architectural committee who seems to be the most qualified on that committee (or cares the most) suggested 40ft minimum for light and air quality but the others did not agree. If one of them had any personal interest in the any of the buildings that was affected by the Merrill Gardens project, you bet the outcome would be different. I’m tired of such a small group making permant decisions for the residents of Kirkland.

]]> By: Neighbors in Norkirk http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/05/15/should-view-preservation-become-the-new-standard-by-which-development-is-opposed-in-kirkland/#comment-113 Neighbors in Norkirk Sun, 25 May 2008 06:37:16 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=93#comment-113 Of course Alex, you make good points if they are true. I am on the fence on parkplace but if the view issue is true it taints the no on parkplace crowd just like civik is tainted now. Of course Alex, you make good points if they are true. I am on the fence on parkplace but if the view issue is true it taints the no on parkplace crowd just like civik is tainted now.

]]> By: Alex Morse http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/05/15/should-view-preservation-become-the-new-standard-by-which-development-is-opposed-in-kirkland/#comment-97 Alex Morse Fri, 23 May 2008 17:29:49 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=93#comment-97 Thank goodness Ken is motivated to react to this developer! From day one when Touchstone bought the site, they planned on a development 50% larger than the Comprhensive Plan. The CRD is not against the development of the site, only that it be in alignment with the Comp Plan of buildings being up to 5 stories. - 6,000 employees will cause gridlock at 25 intersections in Kirkland - Traffic will drive thru the side streets to get around the gridlock - The 3,500 parking spaces is inadequate, and will cause 1,000+ cars to park in surrounding neighborhoods. - Most, if not all, of the retail sales tax will go to pay the $13 million in additional payroll. - We may or may not be charged for night and weekend parking. Why should we allow this Amendment Request when there is no benefit to Kirkland? Thank goodness Ken is motivated to react to this developer! From day one when Touchstone bought the site, they planned on a development 50% larger than the Comprhensive Plan.

The CRD is not against the development of the site, only that it be in alignment with the Comp Plan of buildings being up to 5 stories.
- 6,000 employees will cause gridlock at 25 intersections in Kirkland
- Traffic will drive thru the side streets to get around the gridlock
- The 3,500 parking spaces is inadequate, and will cause 1,000+ cars to park in surrounding neighborhoods.
- Most, if not all, of the retail sales tax will go to pay the $13 million in additional payroll.
- We may or may not be charged for night and weekend parking.

Why should we allow this Amendment Request when there is no benefit to Kirkland?

]]> By: policies from one direction http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/05/15/should-view-preservation-become-the-new-standard-by-which-development-is-opposed-in-kirkland/#comment-93 policies from one direction Fri, 23 May 2008 15:35:18 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=93#comment-93 It seems that we are a city that insists upon listening to the "one-voice" wonders, and a Council that seems intent on listening even if they only hear one complaint. While government that is responsive to its citizens is nice (and can even do some good at times), in Kirkland, it has progressed to the point that anyone who comes up with an emotional appeal, frequently not based in fact (as pointed out above), gets decisions made. In the case of Park Place, Lake and Central, and even the Marina Park restroom (remember that one??), well-thought out projects are stymied by endless appeals and reasonable development never occurs. with the notable exception of Park Place, I do think it is interesting that many of these appeals are "eleventh hour" and those involved have not bothered to come to hearings, write letters, or really even care until they discover their personal space is about to be redefined. The hidden result of such pandering by City Council members to these special interests, is a slap in the face to the many people who chose to engage a process over time. Has anyone figured out the cost to the city of endless studies, meetings, etc. in volunteer and staff hours, particularly when the results of these studies are rejected by a Council listening to (or funded by?) special interests? I dare say we could put a dent in our predicted budget shortfall if we called a halt to this practice. I agree with others above that it is about time to stop the NIMBism and special interest focus and start to look toward the healthy growth and development of the WHOLE city. It is about time for us to move forward from here. I for one, am tiring quickly of all the shenanigans... It seems that we are a city that insists upon listening to the “one-voice” wonders, and a Council that seems intent on listening even if they only hear one complaint. While government that is responsive to its citizens is nice (and can even do some good at times), in Kirkland, it has progressed to the point that anyone who comes up with an emotional appeal, frequently not based in fact (as pointed out above), gets decisions made. In the case of Park Place, Lake and Central, and even the Marina Park restroom (remember that one??), well-thought out projects are stymied by endless appeals and reasonable development never occurs.

with the notable exception of Park Place, I do think it is interesting that many of these appeals are “eleventh hour” and those involved have not bothered to come to hearings, write letters, or really even care until they discover their personal space is about to be redefined.

The hidden result of such pandering by City Council members to these special interests, is a slap in the face to the many people who chose to engage a process over time. Has anyone figured out the cost to the city of endless studies, meetings, etc. in volunteer and staff hours, particularly when the results of these studies are rejected by a Council listening to (or funded by?) special interests? I dare say we could put a dent in our predicted budget shortfall if we called a halt to this practice.

I agree with others above that it is about time to stop the NIMBism and special interest focus and start to look toward the healthy growth and development of the WHOLE city. It is about time for us to move forward from here.

I for one, am tiring quickly of all the shenanigans…

]]> By: The Ghost of Peter Kirk http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/05/15/should-view-preservation-become-the-new-standard-by-which-development-is-opposed-in-kirkland/#comment-57 The Ghost of Peter Kirk Sun, 18 May 2008 21:24:40 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=93#comment-57 "upset" has it right all the way. Having agreed with that, I will say that we <em>all</em> act in our own self interests. That's OK, it is just up to anyone's conscious if they want to conceal their true motives. Since few people would be concerned with Mr. Davidson's offfice views, he logically argues for the things that more peoplewill be concerned with in an effort to gain support for his cause. After all, he is an attorney. That's the way they make a case. “upset” has it right all the way.

Having agreed with that, I will say that we all act in our own self interests. That’s OK, it is just up to anyone’s conscious if they want to conceal their true motives. Since few people would be concerned with Mr. Davidson’s offfice views, he logically argues for the things that more peoplewill be concerned with in an effort to gain support for his cause.

After all, he is an attorney. That’s the way they make a case.

]]> By: do the math http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/05/15/should-view-preservation-become-the-new-standard-by-which-development-is-opposed-in-kirkland/#comment-56 do the math Fri, 16 May 2008 19:06:28 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=93#comment-56 it seem the prudent thing would be for appeal-ers to sign some kind of sworn statement that they are not appealing out of direct self-interest. It will effect thousands, it will cause delays and it will cost many people much money. As Rob has pointed out, far too much cost when you put up so little and can do it just because you feel like it. What's to stop two rival developers, lets say Chaffey and McLeod are in a feud and Chaffey wants to spite McLeod, as he's a developer, he knows an appeal will be a pain in the ass and costly, so he does it. This is such a bad arrangement... it should be costly to appeal so that it's not so frequent. it seem the prudent thing would be for appeal-ers to sign some kind of sworn statement that they are not appealing out of direct self-interest. It will effect thousands, it will cause delays and it will cost many people much money. As Rob has pointed out, far too much cost when you put up so little and can do it just because you feel like it. What’s to stop two rival developers, lets say Chaffey and McLeod are in a feud and Chaffey wants to spite McLeod, as he’s a developer, he knows an appeal will be a pain in the ass and costly, so he does it. This is such a bad arrangement… it should be costly to appeal so that it’s not so frequent.

]]> By: Rob http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/05/15/should-view-preservation-become-the-new-standard-by-which-development-is-opposed-in-kirkland/#comment-55 Rob Fri, 16 May 2008 06:18:11 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=93#comment-55 Correction: I was incorrect in stating that Lake and Central was appealed by CiViK in 2004. CiViK was instrumental in informing the public of the impending sale of the Lake and Central property for development. They organized a group of citizens who then stormed City Hall, convincing a majority on the Council to vote "no" to selling the property, thus sinking the project. -Rob Correction: I was incorrect in stating that Lake and Central was appealed by CiViK in 2004. CiViK was instrumental in informing the public of the impending sale of the Lake and Central property for development. They organized a group of citizens who then stormed City Hall, convincing a majority on the Council to vote “no” to selling the property, thus sinking the project.
-Rob

]]> By: upset http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/05/15/should-view-preservation-become-the-new-standard-by-which-development-is-opposed-in-kirkland/#comment-53 upset Fri, 16 May 2008 04:49:23 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=93#comment-53 The NIMBYs that desire to limit development that negatively affects their views are offensive in their thinly veiled "I've got mine so screw you" attitudes. Most likely their condominimum blocks the view once enjoyed by folks further uphill. They care nothing about the community as a whole, and they know they don't have a legal or political basis for view preservation, so they find other arguments to support their cause. Yes, they should definately own up to their motivations because they are costing the City (aka us taxpayers) dearly for their obstructionist tactics. If the view preservationist and other small-town-charm folks want to re-write the zoning code for downtown, they should be working through the standard politcal processes to make that happen. The NIMBYs that desire to limit development that negatively affects their views are offensive in their thinly veiled “I’ve got mine so screw you” attitudes. Most likely their condominimum blocks the view once enjoyed by folks further uphill. They care nothing about the community as a whole, and they know they don’t have a legal or political basis for view preservation, so they find other arguments to support their cause. Yes, they should definately own up to their motivations because they are costing the City (aka us taxpayers) dearly for their obstructionist tactics.

If the view preservationist and other small-town-charm folks want to re-write the zoning code for downtown, they should be working through the standard politcal processes to make that happen.

]]> By: angry http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/05/15/should-view-preservation-become-the-new-standard-by-which-development-is-opposed-in-kirkland/#comment-52 angry Fri, 16 May 2008 02:02:34 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=93#comment-52 I am against a 5 story building that will wreck Kirkland forever and at the same time my view. So what if I have a view. My view is my business and what I support and why is not your business. It is not illegal to have a view. I am against a 5 story building that will wreck Kirkland forever and at the same time my view. So what if I have a view. My view is my business and what I support and why is not your business. It is not illegal to have a view.

]]> By: anonymous http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/05/15/should-view-preservation-become-the-new-standard-by-which-development-is-opposed-in-kirkland/#comment-51 anonymous Thu, 15 May 2008 23:02:40 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=93#comment-51 As a resident of Juanita, I find the potential for traffic issues to be my highest concern at Park Place. The commute along Market is bad already. The city is supposed to require the developer to mitigate traffic problems caused by development. Somehow I don't trust the city to follow through. As a resident of Juanita, I find the potential for traffic issues to be my highest concern at Park Place. The commute along Market is bad already. The city is supposed to require the developer to mitigate traffic problems caused by development. Somehow I don’t trust the city to follow through.

]]>