Furthermore, admin congratulates Murph in looking for positive solutions which, again, the DRB tried to do and were they congratulated? No, they were met instead with lawsuits and insulting statements from the likes of councilman Hodgson. So, Murph, I say what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

As TGOPK said, instead of doing something constructive like the DRB members were trying to do, CIVIK sits back and waits until their board members see something they don’t like at which time they soliciit money from followers so they can throw everything into a tail spin at our expense.

Don Winters is right-on!!!! Higher density with effective rapid transit is the way to beat congestion. We don’t live in Langley, Washington! Traffic in Kirkland is awful because we think that two story buildings on Lake street is somehow going to solve that… Make everything pedestrian friendly. We had some really talented people work out a really good compromise for BofA building that made it really pedestrian friendly. And a fifth sotry and a bank tenant somehow made it a awful solution. For who????

I agree with Tia. So, Murph, Oriel isn’t good enough for you? Why don’t you buy it and open up a bakery? I want quality retail downtown too. But your living in a fantasy land… With the high rents that downtown commands if there isn’t ways to off-set the prices businesses will have to charge patrons, the cost will be so high they’ll go elsewhere. You want a two story restaurant in a building that’s restricted to four stories on a piece of property that cost 7.4 million dollars plue the cost of constructions, taxes, energy, etc. Have you worked out the economies of scale?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/365170_southdowntown30.html

Taller buildings are environmentally friendly by fighting sprawl and making mass transit workable. No one seems to be discussing this aspect of the issue.

On the other hand, were I one of the naysayers, I would be tempted about this the same way they did, because the system favors this. I don’t approve of it, but the best way to block these projects is clear. Just wait until it has cleared every standard hurdle in the extensive Kirkland development approval process, then take my protest to the city council. That is a poor system, but people in Kirkland have learned that it is how to get their way.

My hope is that council members realize that they are enabling a process that is unfair to property owners and developers, hard on the city employees whose work is set aside (as well as taxpayers who pay for their time), and impolite to the members of the DRB.

To come back to the “flip flop”, I actually see this as a positive move in the sense that council is trying to get to a final result as to what they will allow at this bank site rather than to just kill the entire development proposal, which is what CiViK’s attorney requested. Outright rejection would have maximized the impediment to the development process.

One of CiViK’s leading members had a letter published in the May 21, 2008 issue of the Kirkland Reporter which said, “it is frustrating to be characterized as being against proposals. Our efforts as individuals and collectively in support of other community activities are, sadly, overshadowed by events that receive more attention. However, if we learn from these recent events and channel our energy toward a collective community vision, it will be an honor to be counted in support of the process and the outcomes.”

I will be waiting for CiViK’s energy to manifest itself in that way.

The “use” issue is a bit stickier–is it the job of local government to specify tenants? I was at the two meetings where the appeal was heard and there was abundant confusion over the council’s ability to regulate use. I guess I’m on the side of the fence where we believe the market sorts out use. Government writes the codes that ensure planning decisions support use. The bank is viable because people use it. Robson Street has a bunch of ‘em.

My belief is that the four corners at Kirkland Ave & Lake St are the most important corners in all of downtown Kirkland - the CROSSROADS OF KIRKLAND COMMERCE and THE GATEWAY TO THE LAKE. I feel that these 4 corner sites (along with the parking lot & old Triple J’s site on Central) should be treated differently in the City Code than the neighborhing parcels. The set backs, height, design and use should be treated separately. Let’s sit back, re-evaluate and come up with a compromise, something that everyone can live with and something GREATER than what was approved? We need to think out of the box as we have only one chance to make this happen!!!

I do not oppose a bank on the corner, but I do oppose the bulk of the building as well as the street level sf given to banking. Why not compromise? An idea would be to have a main bank entrance at the ‘corner’ but with an escelator & elevator up to 2nd floor banking, leaving the bulk of the superior retail space for…well, retail!

Additionally, I would like to see the developers and architects consider 2nd story restaurant space with street level entry similar to Vancouver’s Robson St on a smaller scale. 2nd floor (or top floor) dining serves two purposes: 1) it would provide deep upper level setback for outoor dining getting patrons awaf from traffic views to city views (there is nothing more unappealing than having headlights illuminating your table), 2) provide architectually significant and interesting set-backs. Or perhaps a two level restaurant, small lunch cafe on the street level with larger fine dining upstairs (with setbacks for outside dining).

Happiness would be Oriel’s location become a fabulous independent bakery and deli with fresh, quality bake goods, hearty homemade soups and salads. There is a wonderful bakery that fits this description in West Vancouver, better than any in Seattle.

How many stories is the right mix? I am OK with 5 stories on Lake St but in my opinion, the set backs are inadequate. The 5th story should be set back at least 20′ to render it insignificant from street level. I know that McLeod plans are for no residential, but I wonder if he considered having the 5th floor as residential penthouse homes with large terraces (similar to Marina Heights 4th level). They could command big bucks with ample square footage, incredible terraces and views. I understand that people of Portsmith will never be happy with 5 stories, but the truth is, without recorded view covenants, views are never guaranteed.

What about the west side of Lake Street? Development will never happen with the limit of 2 stories. Consider 3…with the upper floors being residential penthouse homes, 3rd floor setbacks on both east and west sides.

My ideas are many, so I am happy to have a forum to share some ideas, but enough for now…