Three options for Kirkland Parkplace - cast your vote in our online poll
Kirkland Parkplace as we know it will soon be history. The owner of the property, Touchstone, has applied to the Planning Commission for a private amendment request (PAR) asking for a variance on the current zoning to allow for a planned mixed-use office/retail/hotel complex. There has been much interest in the community with downtown businesses strongly supporting the Mixed-Use Plan and some citizens opposing it. To date there has been much confusion about the possible outcomes of this process.
In short, there are three possible scenarios for the future of Parkplace:
- Touchstone’s Mixed-Use Plan (8-story)
- Touchstone’s Office Alternative Plan (5-story)
- Planning Commission’s Alternative Plan (11-story)
NOTE: An opposition group called, Kirkland Citizens for Responsible Development (KCRD), has proposed their own alternative plan which they say adheres to current city codes which you can find here. The KCRD proposal is not being considered by the Planning Commission.
1. Mixed-Use Pan (8-story)
This is the plan is the preferred plan submitted by Touchstone.
Requires changes in the City’s zoning codes
- 12 restaurants (many of them full service)
- 82 local, regional and national retailers
- Diverse mix of retail to serve residents’ everyday needs
- “Active” open space for the community to experience (water features, public art and community-gathering spaces)
- Brand new QFC (double its current size)
- New full-service sports club and hotel (space for weddings, family gatherings, public events and business conferences)
- State-of-the-art movie theater and other entertainment venues
2. Office Alternative Plan (5-story)
DOES NOT Require changes in the City’s zoning codes
- 3-5 lunchtime restaurants (serving office workers)
- 4-6 office-oriented retailers (FedEx Kinko’s, office suppliers, etc.)
- “Passive” landscaped open space (largely designed for office workers)
- QFC remains the same in Phase 1
- No sports club or hotel
- No movie theater or entertainment venues
3. Planning Commission’s Alternative Plan (11-story)
Requires changes in the City’s zoning codes
This plan was offered by the Planning Commission as an attempt to find a compromise between Touchstone’s Mixed-Use Plan and those opposed to it. This option would allow for the same amount of office space as the eight-story Mixed-Use Plan, but it would allow up to eleven stories in height toward the east of the property in exchange for lower building heights along Central Way and facing Peter Kirk Park.
Shopping Mall or Office Park?
When these three options are boiled down we are left with a simple choice: Do we want a shopping mall in Parkplace or do we want an office park? Options 1 and 3 will allow for an expanded shopping mall and restaurants, a hotel, a larger QFC, sports club and movie theater. Option 2 will simply be an office park with little to offer the community.
For some there are still issues that need to be resolved such as traffic mitigation and parking requirements. There is never going to be a perfect solution for everyone and compromises must be made. Assuming for a moment that we can set aside emotions and look at these projects from a rational perspective, we are left with the three options — two with mixed-use and one as an office park.
Here is your opportunity to cast your vote in our online poll. Let us know which alternative you would like to see for the future of Kirkland Parkplace. After you vote, please write a comment explaining why you voted the way you did.
Loading ...Related Articles
26 Responses to “Three options for Kirkland Parkplace - cast your vote in our online poll”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe
You can subscribe by email to receive newsletter updates:
Subscribe through a RSS feed reader
-
-
-
-
Translator
By N2H
KCTS 9 Connects - Yakima Valley Gangs
Sponsored Ads
There should be an other offered here. These are all that have been proposed…but there are other options, such as a modified plan from the 8-storeis. Much like the planning commission proposed an 11-story option, they could propose an option of say 7-stories across the back of the property and larger set-backs along the park.
[Reply]
Want to be kirkland: your point is well taken. There are a myriad of different options that could be built, but the three listed are the only three options before the Planning Commission. Wishing for something that is unlikely to become reality is fine, but until additional options are before the Planning Commission, the three listed are the only realistic choices. That is why I have asked for compromise and asked for which option you would most support. Thanks for your comment.
[Reply]
I am surprised by it but I just voted for the 11 story option. I really have reservations about the plans before the commission particularly the setbacks. The logic of these being the only three possible outcomes makes sense. I would prefer lower heights and more setbacks but I am coming to the realization that I may not get what I want. So what options do I have other than to choose from the ones on the table. I voted for the 11 story option so we can have more lower buildings around the park. The height issues are so emotional for me. I hate the idea of Bellevue style buildings in Kirkland. But I am a realist and I work in a 12 story building and it doesn’t seem that tall to me. What matters is what is at the ground level around the people walking on the street. One tall building in the middle of Park Place I think would be best if we can be assured of smaller buildings on the rest of the property and especially around the park.
[Reply]
I’ve seen too much change in our town for me to be comfortable. I want be be able to shop in Kirkland with local stores and things we residents need. If the mall will help us get that kind of service again then I reluctantly say built it. The mall is sad to visit today.
[Reply]
NO thank you. I don’t want parkplace developed.
[Reply]
John Gilday Reply:
August 28th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
I agree, lets turn Park Place back into a blackberry covered carnival lot like it was in the 60’s.
While we’re at it, lets replace The Kirkland Police Department with Andy Griffith and Don Knotts. Hell, lets get rid of that pesky polio vaccine and measles immunization - they all sound too ’21st Century’ for my taste.
It seems like these darn developers all seem to want to remodel every 40-50 years! Pretty soon they’ll come to my door demanding I give up my fountain pen and get one of those gosh darn IBM Selectric typewriters! HELL NO!
And while we’re at it, lets demand women start wearing modest bathing suits that cover their ankles, these harlots are walking around with their knees showing! Enough to drive a man to drink. In fact I think I will.
[Reply]
I cannot vote in favor of any of the options above. A better choice would be simply “Mixed Use” or “Office”. Once “Mixed Use” wins, which it will, then hash out the building heights and mass. If I cast a blog vote for one of the above, no matter which way I vote, I would be voting in favor of something I am not in favor of. I do not believe the above three choices are the only options. They may be the only options on the table for discussion at the moment, but I am optimistic that a more reasonable compromise can be struck. If Park Place center were not on a hill overlooking the downtown “bowl”, I would vote for the 11 story option. Do people have any concept of how tall 11 stories will look given the site? The 11 stories will appear to be more like 15 or more. Consider Portsmith and it’s monolithic presence due to the height, mass and topography. If anything, the McLeod project will soften the overwhelming impact of Portsmith. Sorry, I digress…
[Reply]
I am marginally for the Planning Commissions alternative 11 story plan over the original 8 story plan because I think the juxtaposition of the two hights might work better and be a little nicer around the park. In either case I strongly support the mixed use development and believe it will be an asset to Kirkland. I would love to have to stop going elsewhere for basic retail and I think more offices and another hotel could be good.
[Reply]
This is an interesting exercise to vote as if we were on the planning board. Most people in Kirkland seem to want a mixed use option but it is the office part that causes divergence in what is acceptable for people. One person says they want only 7 stories at parkplace. Another says 11 is okay. How is it that one can say 7 is fine but absolutely no to 8 floors? That seems totally irrational to me as it seems like there is some huge difference between 7 and 8. Why not 6 or 9 floors? These numbers are emotional and have little to do with what is actually taking place on the ground. A company owns land it wants to develop and it has calculated that X amount of office space is needed to support various goodies like shopping, restaurants and public spaces. X amount of office space requires a certain number of floors in height. That is the calculation that should be made, not some out of thin air number of floors that is acceptable. 5 floors, 7 floors or 8 floors are just numbers with sentimental attachment that says one is better than another. Use logic and solid reasoning when deciding what is appropriate for height. Personally I think the idea of 7 floors sound better than 8 but why do I think that? Is my thought of 7 being an ideal worth fighting for or is it based on something other than logic? My guess is that we are all tied up in the sentimental side of this because we consider parkplace to be an important part of our lives.
[Reply]
The bottom line for me is that in order for our downtown to work, we need shopping and restaurants/entertainment. The office park option for PP is not an option that leads to a health downtown. While I don’t like the height of either option 1 or 3, keeping the big part of the towers away from Peter Kirk park is the best possible idea. (keeping towers away from central way is not important.) but preserving the natural drift from the park into PP and the rest of downtown is important. So, to me the lesser of these three evils is the DRB’s proposal — we may not praise them for this but they did come up with an interesting alternative to the owner’s ugly boxes…
[Reply]
The vote is clearly been rigged to support going with the developer’s proposed solution, which is a shame for someone purporting to be interested in developing and improving Kirkland.
If we stick with the current code — which is NATURALLY the CORRECT thing to do — they will build something nobody wants. We want a local shopping mall. Unfortunately, we’re getting a BellSquare destination spot, meaning that all our local shopping, zipping in to pick up some food from QFC or the local restaurants will become an ordeal.
Could you imagine shopping at BellSquare for your weekly needs?
Clearly, a better solution is to stick with code and keep it focused local needs stores (we already lost a drug store and hardware store) with as much office space as they can fit in the remaining area. At 5 stories, they’d already get a lot more space.
And hasn’t anybody noticed that the current mall often has vacancies? Will people really fill all the space this huge project being proposed will create?
[Reply]
In response to David Wall:
Sir, you state that the vote has “clearly been rigged to support going with the developer’s solution…”
Which vote are you referring to? If you are referring to the poll at the end of this post, I can assure you that you are mistaken. I have examined the voting logs and each vote is validated and there has been no “rigging”.
This vote is unscientific, of course, but just because those who have chosen to cast a vote so far have chosen to do so in a manner with which you disagree, does not mean anything is rigged. I suggest you investigate further into the polling technology deployed on this site as it was selected for its robust security. The technology is quite impressive in how it prevents voters from attemping to vote multiple times. If you have any further questions regarding this subject please feel free to ask.
[Reply]
Personally, I would like to see an artists rendering of the 11 story plan before I sign on to any particular option. Where would this tower(s) be located? How would that be offset by lower level building along Peter Kirk Park? For me the question is how much better (or worse) will the project be for the public if it is 5 stories, 8 stories or 11 stories.
[Reply]
I would vote for 5 floors if it had a mall attached. I will vote for 8 with a mall as a compromise. I think we need more restaurants. I was really hoping for a restaurant facing the park so we could enjoy the afternoons outside. Today we have a parking lot and the Purple restaurant faces the wrong way.
[Reply]
John Gilday Reply:
August 28th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
ALL of the major restaurants (Purple, Rikki Rikki, Lucia) would face the Park in the new development.
Great outsoor seating and a view of the sun sinking over Queen Anne.
[Reply]
How interesting it is that everyone wants a mixed use park place. Even the anti park place people want mixed use over an office park. If the choice were more simple and just mixed use or office park then I bet more people would vote but because the question includes how tall the thing will be then everyone is concerned. The city needs the sales tax revenue of this mixed use project. A message to everyone who can’t support mixed use: your taxes will go up without it because the city is going to have to get money from sales tax, business or taxes on property. No businesses bringing in sales tax means no money for the city and higher taxes on your home.
[Reply]
I voted for the 11 story option. The shops and restaurants are what will add to a vital downtown. The 11 story option makes the pedestrian areas more open. These are the important issues in my mind. I don’t think these building will intrude on Kirkland’s character. The old part of downtown is blocks away, and even though Park Place is on slightly higher ground, there is also much higher ground behind Park Place, which should serve to minimize the visual impact.
It’s often mentioned by opponents of this proposal that they don’t want to see Kirkland become another Bellevue. Bellevue has 35 buildings taller than 11 stories, and has several over 40 stories! We would not even be in the same league.
[Reply]
The 8 story “preferred” plan by Touchstone is TWICE the size of Lincoln Square (1.2 million square feet of office space for new Park Place vs. 540,000 square feet for Lincoln Square). I don’t think we can underscore that enough.
This is a huge develepment that is out of step with the size and character of Kirkland, not to mention our abilitiy to handle the added traffic, parking, and other costs associated with servicing such a development on an ongoing basis (not to mention McLeod, the new BofA, and the 2 proposed 6 story office developments around the post office).
Touchstone is holding us hostage by proposing an either/or option of a giant mixed use plan OR an office park. Why don’t they propsose a mixed use plan that is more in keeping with the currently allowed 800,000 square feet of development? Why can’t 1 million square feet of mixed use be considered?
In fact, why did the city bother holding those meetings last summer where citizens gathered at the Teen Center to talk about their vision for Kirkland? Not one of those people at the meeting mentioned anything about having 2 new Lincoln Centers developed in down town.
[Reply]
I believe the mixed use 8 story proposal is the best. The eleven story could be good but I would want to know if it would include the same amenities that the eight story project has. It will be nice to have more restaurants and shops to choose from and would make some of us Kirkland residents not as reliant on Bellevue and Seattle to fill those needs.
People are saying that Touchstone is holding us hostage with the two proposals. But you are forgetting they are in business to make money and thankfully they are going through the headache to try and give us something that would be good for the community. They don’t have to go through as much hassle with office park since they don’t need any height variances. I applaud Touchstone and hope they don’t get frustrated with trying to develop Park Place and fall back on their second option, the business park.
[Reply]
I would like to see mixed-use, but if it were all offices, those people would have to come into downtown to eat and shop. Seems to me, that would provided the needed shot-in-the arm for downtown retailers.
And it should be clarified for the people here who think one 11-story building is not that bad. Look again at the plan, it calls for three 11-story buildings, including one along the park.
[Reply]
this dialog has been very interesting. i love the fact that i live in a place where people are concerned about their hometown and are willing to fight for what they feel identifies their place. as viewing from the sidelines, we have all become too jaded by the statistics. poorly designed buildings, regardless of their size, will sterilize any proposal put forward. we have gotten to the point where we are splitting hairs and we need to move forward thoughtfully, along with a well defined aesthetic that we, as citizens (both new and old), feel suits the direction of this community. i am currently in support of the mixed use route, but feel it is imperitive that assistance of the design be influenced by the people who will LIVE in and around this space, not simply left to the developers, who may or may not complain about the costs of development, that could potentially hurt our town.
[Reply]
[...] NOTE: This poll originally appeared in the post: Three options for Kirkland Parkplace - cast your vote in our online poll [...]
I’ve thought a lot about this project. I don’t have a problem with 11 stories in order to stagger the heights rather than one height throught a footprint of this size. I feel even more strongly, however, that it should incorporate retail into the mix of hotel, office, theater and retail. This would make it a more vibrant development 24/7.
[Reply]
Correction, I meant that I would like to see RESIDENTIAL incorporated into the mix of hotel, office, theater and retail
[Reply]
Murph,
IMO Moss Bay has enough residential. I want less multi-family (you can’t really call an apartment tower that because families won’t be living there!)and more amnenities for those of us who live around there.
KBB
[Reply]
Mutli-family replacing a PORTION of the office designated space would not change the amenities for local residents. On the contrary, IMO, it would IMPROVE the amenities we are lacking and enhance nightime ambience. The project is huge and will be predominantly a dead zone at night if it is all commercial/office.
[Reply]