Kirkland Parkplace public hearing: support for mixed-use yet concerns linger over parking and traffic
The sun was out. Touchstone, developer of Kirkland Parkplace, had a table with refreshments, brochures and green buttons as big as a plate. Kirkland Citizens for Responsible Development’s table stood opposite providing information, signup sheets and their blue “See the Sky” stickers for supporters. What was expected to be a blow-out event with rooms filled to capacity never came. In the end, this event ran more smoothly and was better organized than most had anticipated. The Planning Department had done a great job in preparation for the evening and should be commended for their efforts.
The expected onslaught of citizens overflowing out of the building, which characterized the June 12 public hearing, did not arrive. Contributing factors were, of course, the warm weather, the excellent preparation for the event by the Planning Department, and the fact that the event was televised live and streamed on the internet. This allowed for those in attendance to give their views to the Planning Commission in an orderly fashion.
The event included speakers on the issues of Orni and Altom PARs, but the vast majority were there to voice an opinion on Parkplace. Those who spoke to the Commission were each given three minutes. The thirty-five speakers presented arguments for or against the three Parkplace development options before the Commission. They were well reasoned and often filled with passion. It is good to see the community so involved. Excellent points were made throughout the evening with respect for the process, the Planning Commission and the both sides in the audience.
The speakers breakdown:
- 23 in favor of Touchstone’s 8-story mixed use option
- 2 in favor of Touchstone’s 5-story office alternative option
- 10 opposed to Touchstone options
The most often mentioned concerns about Parkplace were parking and traffic. It seems as though few people in Kirkland are in favor of the office park alternative.
The arguments presented to the Planning Commission were for the most part reasonable and well crafted. The vast majority of the speakers voiced opinions that they believed would improve Parkplace. Some of them will undoubtedly make it into the final project. What will become of Parkplace will not be the dream of any one individual. Rather, Parkplace will have been molded from the many suggestions voiced over the course of the past year. The purpose of this process has been to involve the community throughout. This hearing was a continuation of the public hearing of June 12. Thank you to those who voiced their opinions to help shape Kirkland Parkplace.
Loading ...What are your views? Did you attend the meeting or watch it on television? What was your impression of the hearing? What were the most compelling arguments you heard?
Print This ArticleRelated Articles
6 Responses to “Kirkland Parkplace public hearing: support for mixed-use yet concerns linger over parking and traffic”
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
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.
[Reply]
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.
[Reply]
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
[Reply]
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.
[Reply]
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.
[Reply]
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.
[Reply]