Comments on: Kirkland Parkplace public hearing: support for mixed-use yet concerns linger over parking and traffic

By: Cami Keyes

Cami Keyes — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:47:22 +0000

James, Indeed the acerage of Redmond Town Center (RTC) is larger. It also includes a substantial amount of permanent open space. To match the size at Parkplace, you are correct, Touchstone would need to go higher and dig deeper. They are attempting to shortcut the dig deeper part and short parking significantly, not a good scenario if a city already struggling under serious parking issues. As a member of Kirkland Citizens for Responsible Development, our stand is that it is too large for Kirkland. Downtown is not a place for a Regional Shopping Mall. We are hopeful that the Plannning Commission will create an alternate plan that will lower the size and scale of this project such that it is not the same size at RTC. In which case, the present depth and number of parking spaces would be sufficient.

By: James Patterson

James Patterson — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 00:23:15 +0000

The comparison with Red Town Square is interesting. Cami, do you have data on RTS’s acreage? I am quite sure it is considerably larger than PP. This means PP will need deeper parking and higher buildings.
Rob, thanks for this web site, it iis a refreshing read.

By: Gail

Gail — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:57:22 +0000

Trooper is right. This is a pretty important subject for kirkland and what gets built should be based on the merits of the propsal and not based on who can organize the best or make the most noise. Did the planning department ask questions at the public hearings or did they only listen because I wonder if they have already made up their minds.

By: Cami Keyes

Cami Keyes — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 01:25:49 +0000

Thanks Rob for the offer to post the Kirkland CRD numbers. I kept a careful count of everyone who spoke by name. Those who spoke for two, I marked as two. I counted 19 for and 15 against and 1 who was primarily proposing a compromise. I can even list the names if needed.

The meeting was much better run and organized. The clear message was that people would prefer mixed use and do not want the 11 - story option. I also think there were many very informed speakers sharing important information. Many more expressed concerns about parking and traffic, even those primarily for the proposal. I believe for many it’s not about height as much as the problems that come from this much mass. That’s why at Kirkland CRD we are very much for Redevelopment, but we would like it to be at a lesser scale, to avoid many of the potential problems that have so many concerned.

Our research showed that Redmond Town Center has the exact same office and retail square footage as the proposed Parkplace, but 5,000 parking spaces. I believe that is an indication of what Parkplace needs to plan for if they are going to develop for 1.8 million square feet. Or, they need to plan for less square footage.

Thanks again for giving us a chance to set the record straight.

Cami

By: Trooper

Trooper — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:16:46 +0000

Only two head counts will really matter. 4 or more out of 7 from the Planning Commission and then 4 or more out of 7 from the City Council. Neither body should make their decision based solely on quantity of commenters, instead their decision should be based primarily on the substance of the proposal and the comments.

By: Rob Butcher

Rob Butcher — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:59:00 +0000

The Kirkland CRD organization has contacted Kirkland Views to challenge the numbers used in this post. While they acknowledge more speakers were in favor of Touchstone’s preferred option than opposed, the KCRD count showed greater parity. If we erred with the numbers we posted we apologize Our goal is to be fair to all sides and we appreciate the input from the KCRD to correct the record. We welcome them to post their own count below.