McLeod appeal still unresolved - It is time for some common sense
Last night the Kirkland City Council continued hearing the quasi-judicial appeal of the the Stuart McLeod mixed-use project but ended deliberations at eleven o’clock to be continued at the Council’s next session.
At issue was the definition of “two stories along Lake Street”, heights and views from a public path between the project and The Portsmith condominiums (you can download the Council Packet here).
The applicant attempted to mitigate the two story issue by offering the Council an alternative to what the DRB had approved, thus creating a continuous two story facade along Lake Street.
An interesting point is the amount of retail frontage this plan will create. This is a very large project. Along Lake Street, the property has 380 feet of frontage. Through the use of cleaver design including a public courtyard within, the proposal would allow for over 1000 square feet of retail frontage.
The tenant mix is unknown with the exception of Hector’s restaurant, which is owned by McLeod and will be relocated after construction.
McLeod is marketing the office and retail project through Linc Properties on their website www.LakeStreetPlace.com
The benefits this project would bring to downtown are substantial:
- 130,000 square feet of office space
- 39,000 square feet of retail space
- 500+ car underground parking garage (available to the public evenings and weekends)
- approximately 1000 feet of retail frontage
I must say the presentation from McLeod was well done. The project appears to be extremely well planned with a high degree of detail and quality. We can only hope that other Kirkland developers will use the McLeod project as a benchmark.
It is time for common sense
Some may object to the scale, design, height or even the existence of the mixed-use plan, but to hazard a guess at what judgement the City Council may make would be foolish. The Council is struggling with this difficult task of judging issues with which few on the Council have experience (Council member Bob Sternoff is a developer so he is familiar with these issues, but he is not an architect).
Council members were debating arbitrary numbers for setbacks from from the street. This is neither their purview nor their competency. Yes, the Council has the power to dictate such matters and to micromanage any little point of contention, but that is not what they should be doing in this case. They need to determine if the DRB erred. If so, find a remedy. If not, let the DRB decision stand.
The DRB was (and will be again) a board of professionals interpreting an ambiguous code in an attempt to improve City development. If one does not like the judgement calls that are made by that body, then one needs to change the process so that judgements and interpretations are not possible.
If the process is broken, then fix the process. If the process is not broken, then rely on the advise of professionals. The City Council should not be debating the meaning of words such as “should” or “building”. Overriding the judgement of the DRB based upon the strict dictionary definitions in a poorly-worded set of codes would not be a wise move by the City Council.
We need some common sense to prevail in this process. We need to determine what the zoning codes were intended to do. Are they strict, explicit and unyielding rules, meant to be followed in unwavering precision? Or is the zoning code ambiguous in areas, thus leaving open the possibility of compromise, interpretation, variation and creativity of design?
It appears that two camps have emerged around downtown development: ‘build to the maximum allowable limit’ and ‘keep downtown quaint as it is’. The structures we design today will serve our community for decades to come. We need to get this right. We need to grow to remain a vibrant community. We need to maintain our unique character for future generations. We need to find a common ground.
What are your views? How do you like the idea of the Council functioning as Design Review Board rather than the professionals that volunteer for those positions? What could be a common ground? What benefits to downtown do you imagine as a result of the McLeod project? What negatives?
Print This ArticleRelated Articles
24 Responses to “McLeod appeal still unresolved - It is time for some common sense”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe
You can subscribe by email to receive newsletter updates:
Subscribe through a RSS feed reader
OMG! An interview with Kirkland’s Jason Mesnick from “The Bachelor”
Sponsored Ads
I read in the paper that this was CIVK appealing. Is that not true? Thanks.
[Reply]
That’s right - it was not civik’s appeal. The paper had made a mistake and printed a retraction a few weeks ago.
[Reply]
The story you might be referring to is here.
It says “the McLeod appeal is not led by CiViK.” At the end of the paragraph, however, it does note that, “The two other appellants listed are CiViK volunteers.”
That is the truth. It’s also notable that one of the Portsmith appellants, Mr. Brown (who is head of the homeowner’s association there), is a member of the CiViK steering committee and appeared as a witness for CiViK at the Bank of America appeal.
The important distinction here is the CiViK Board has not “officially” taken position on the McLeod appeal.
Hope that clears it up for you, Confused.
[Reply]
Thanks guys for answering my question but now I’m more confused. Retraction or no retraction? Trooper did you read the article He Who…. quoted?
[Reply]
The paper’s retraction was printed sometime in May. It was a brief thing, not an article - I can’t find it on their website.
We are off topic from Rob’s questions, so my thought: The McLeod project should be a dynamic centerpiece for downtown business and retail. The parking is a major plus. One possible negative is traffic, which the city seems to turn a blind eye to.
[Reply]
Referenced your site here http://www.djc.com/blogs/BuildingGreen/
[Reply]
I think this project is great from what I see. It will bring us lots of desperately needed parking downtown. I think the shopping looks like a bonus and restaurants is what we need to replace. I think downtown is losing six restaurants recently. More choices brings more people. Office space is good to fill the restaurants during the day and that provides parking spaces at night which other retailers will benefit from. Traffic is going to be with us no matter what. And I bet the city could use the added tax money too. Blocking views would be bad but views have been blocked by every building ever built. Only recently have people started to complain about it to the degree we have in Kirkland. How is it that Bank of America, Mcleod and parkplace can be stopped because of views. Nuts.
[Reply]
I like this project. I find it visually stimulating with an interesting mix of materials and facade, and well thought out with high quality detail and finishes (as far as I can tell). My only objection is the lack of overall height modulation in the 4 story section. Based on the little I know of McLeod’s projects, this will be a first class, high quality development (unlike Juanita Village).
[Reply]
I think this could be a useful project for downtown and bring some much needed new blood. The building looks attractive and I think it will be an asset to the area.
On the topic of if the Council should be making these decisions or relying on the DRB - I think that they should rely on the opinions of the experts they asked to do the job. Why have a Board if you are simply going to ignore their advice and the advice of the highly trained staff you employ?
[Reply]
For me, the problem is the 2 story on Lakestreet. If the Council doesn’t try to define a building as something like a facade then McLeod should lose. If they say the intent was for the feeling or look of a 2 story building for a pedestrian on the street then McLeod should win. Think about Park Lane and the feeling of walking down it. Those buildings are no more than 2 stories and that is the sense that is trying to be reproduced. And if they limit heights to only 2 stories along Lakestreet, will there ever be development ? My bet is that the land cost is too high to make it worth digging a hole for required parking.
[Reply]
Good information is hard to come by so I watched my first city council meeting and learned lots. I like the architectural drawings shown in the city’s documents. My thought is this building is good for the city but I don’t work in Kirkland so what I think doesn’t matter compared to the people who live and work next door. Is everyone who works downtown for this project? The original plan looks good from what I can see. I don’t really like the colors chosen and it looks a bit industrial but I think we need to move on and improve the downtown area and this looks like about as good as it comes.
[Reply]
I don’t believe the McLeod project is very attractive, BUT the (former) DRB carefullly evaluated the proposal in the context of the zoning code (including height limitations), weighed the public input, and made their recommendation based upon their sound professional judgement. I would hope that the no-growth 4 on the council would recall the legal advise from the City Attorney regarding the BOA mess and allow the recommendation of the DRB to stand. What I’m afraid of is that as long as the no-growth 4 remain on Council, appeals will continue for any and all projects that NIMBYs don’t like, and the rest of us taxpayers will be stuck with the City’s litigation costs.
[Reply]
I don’t understand why the people who are most touched by this building speaking out? Is it that they are business owners who don’t want to lose business if they anger people on the opposite side of the issue? I thought that there would be downtown businesses lining up to make a stink about this building as a benefit or as a negative to their livelihood. But they are silent. I really want to hear from them because they are the heart and soul of downtown. They will take the hit if the wrong decision is made here. They have the most to gain and the most to lose but they remain silent. I don’t get it. I have an opinion but I live in North Rose Hill so who cares what I think.
[Reply]
Jack224, your opinion should be considered whether you live next door or several neighborhoods away.
I think that the design that got approved by the DRB was a big improvement over the original that was submitted and I agree with Neighbor about the DRB’s process on this proposal.
Neighbor, you mentioned that there was legal advice from the City Attorney regarding the BOA proposal. What was that and when was it given?
[Reply]
I, too, wish the city business owners (not the land owners) would weigh in here. I understand the fear of speaking for or against, but they can claim they are a business proprietor and still remain anonymous. That is the beauty of a blog, right?
[Reply]
Trooper:
The advice that was given is basically this: You have facts and findings to deny project approval, but as yet have made no decision (the city manager made similar remarks). Ultimately, you can: adopt findings in a resolution to “deny”, review modified plan and approve a resolution to “modify” or simply abandon the proposed findings and allow the DRB-approved plan to stand with a resolution to “approve”.
[Reply]
You’re right Trooper in stating the options that were laid out for Council. I believe appeals of DRB approvals should be the rare exception, rather than the norm. If CIVIK and other NIMBYs knew that their odds of success on appeal were slim, they would not be so inclined to roadblock each and every development project that comes along with costly appeals.
The Council would better serve the community if they were spending time debating broader policy questions instead of playing the role of the DRB. We have real issues in the City such as the current projected budget shortfall that need the dedicated time and leadership of Council to address. It’s too bad that the system is so disfunctional at present.
[Reply]
I have observed the activities of the development community with interest for some time and I have filled this blog now for a few weeks. I find the system by which Kirkland allows properties to be developed to be in question by a significant portion of the population. A city can develop in three basic ways: hands off; moderate involvement; and significant involvement. In my opinion Kirkland has significant involvement. The city has many requirements that other cities do not. The purpose of this involvement if to improve the development for the public good.
Some people think this is too invasive and costly. I think it results in improved buildings. The process is long and costly and open to appeal but what alternive would be better? Do those who complaint about the DRB have a better solution? I don’t see one. I may not agree with every decision made by the DRB but I agree with the process as being the best method for development.
[Reply]
It seems that everyone is Jonesing for the opinion of one of us mcLeod tenants. So here we go…
I own the Ben & Jerry’s and have been here for just over seven years, which sadly makes me one of the older tenants in this ever-changing retail landscape. I have spoken with most of my neighbors and our general feeling on the subject is that we see the value in the project, and if it doesn’t require losing our livelihood, then we want it approved. But this scenario has been far worse than we had imagined. We have all lost employees (who read blogs and papers that land at their feet weekly) or have had far more trouble getting summer employees because people are staying away from all of the “limbo zones” (including parkplace). We can’t plan well for caterings, and weddings, anything with a future date has been an issue for, let’s see, SIX MONTHS! We are not in the driver’s seat on anything, we just have to watch appeals go on and on with no moderator to keep the amateur appelants on task. And though I haven’t heard of anyone in this building being for the appeal (me included) the thing that makes my blood boil, is watching the incompetence of the appeal. Of the time on the June 3rd mtg, that was 7pm til nearly 1am, so much of it was not on task. I don’t need to here what job the appellant has held, or how a condo owner thinks the cars might drive to get in! If time had been managed, we should now have decisions on both B of A and McLeod. Instead I had to watch in horror and disbelief as the Mayor (tho inadvertently) LAUGHED AT DELAYING AGAIN!! If you were waiting to see if you’re going broke, or surviving, you sure as hell don’t want to see the Mayor giggling at the fact that they still couldn’t get it together to determine your fate, and you are that much closer to the ticking clock that is your expiring lease.
For those that say we should relocate, I have to say, we would have to think long and hard about staying in a town that has shown it’s true colors to be incredibly anti-small business.
That’s my 2 cents, or dime, as it were. Please take it with a few grains of salt, as this city council has made a bitter person of me.
[Reply]
The discourse over the looming developments of PP, B of A and McLeod will ultimately deliver a better outcome, but it is certainly painful getting there. No one is going to escape this process unscathed, but “this too shall pass”. Personal attacks, in my opinion, are inappropriate. To the party(s) making caustic, personal attacks (and you know who you are), I suggest utilizing your collective expertise and volunteer to serve on the Planning Commission, City Council or the Design Review Board. Obviously your expertise would benefit our City.
I spent a better part of the day driving through “downtown” Fremont and West Seattle off 15th. The core of Fremont has new 4 & 5 story buildings and still retains the same funky attitude and pedestrian friendly environment it has always been known for. Pete’s Coffe on the corner is an interesting 3 story building with a stepped back top floor that appears to have a residential penthouse unit(s)with large terraces atop several stories of business/retail. I can envision something similar along the west side of Lake Street. The promise of diversity is why I hope Lake Street remains full of smaller, independent ownership rather than a massive block development that could define the culture of our City.
West Seattle off 15th is a different story with institutional, uninteresting 5+6 story massive, straight-up residential boxes that will visually affect the area for the foreseeable future. I’m citing these examples of what I observe on a daily basis in the Seattle area because I am passionate that the key to a successful business/residential/mixed use core in Kirkland is innovative, quality design and the break of up mass! I cannot over emphasize the importance of sensitive design. Height, in my opinion, is less of an issue. If the developers didn’t ask for the moon and presented innovative, outstanding, landmark design that enhanced the community visually as well as functionally, I seriously doubt that we would have found ourselves where we are today. And in the process they would have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars on merry-go-round of re-design. I’m in favor of PP mixed use but I remain concerned about the hard edged, institutional design and mass. That said, I hope Touchstone hangs in there because they have the financial ability to, with a bit more finesse, enhance our City.
Unfortunately, the Googleplex could have enhanced the surrounding community, instead it will forever be the white elephant of Kirkland. I am told that the Googleplex did not fall under the purvue of the DRB. This is an unfortunate oversite of Planning and Zoning. A site that large, located in the middle of an established residential neighborhood in the core of the City, should have required formal design review with public input at the very least! One can only hope for monumental artistic landscaping, but with the visible surface parking, it does not look promising.
[Reply]
Correction to my post above. I mean’t Ballard (not West Seattle) off 15th, sorry about the confusion.
[Reply]
When is the future of the McLeod’s project going to be further discussed ? The complex is now mostly empty and I can’t wait for construction to begin. Thanks for this wonderful web site.
[Reply]
I read similar article also named d appeal still unresolved - It is time for some common sense, and it was completely different. Personally, I agree with you more, because this article makes a little bit more sense for me
[Reply]
It is resolved. Slight modifications were proposed by McLeod and approved by Council. It is a go.
[Reply]