Bank of America Appeal - Final Rendition of Modified Design
More light has been shed on the events surrounding the Bank of America Appeal. It appears that both SRM and CiViK agreed to a series of Question and Answer rounds following the July 11 quasi-judicial hearing.
Kirkland Views has obtained additional responses submitted since the hearing which more fully explain the proposed project as it stands today. This new information completes a story that was only partially available yesterday when we posted Bank of America Appeal - CiViK Questions and SRM Answers.
After the July 11 hearing, both parties to the appeal agreed to an exchange of questions and answers. The agreed framework allowed for CiViK to submit questions of SRM and then for SRM to submit answers. The City Manager’s office managed the process and arranged for the due dates.
The City Manager’s office outlined the following due dates for both parties:
- July 11 Questions from CiViK
- July 18 Answers from SRM
- July 23 Follow-up Questions from CiViK
- July 25 Follow-up Answers from SRM
Kirkland Views published a portion of this Q&A series in the July 26 article, Bank of America Appeal - CiViK Questions and SRM Answers. At that time, we were not aware of the additional round of questions and answers that took place July 23 and July 25. The entire exchange between CiViK and SRM is available as two downloads:
Download the July 11 & July 18 set of questions and answers here.
Download the July 23 & July 25 set of follow-up questions and answers here.
Related Articles
7 Responses to “Bank of America Appeal - Final Rendition of Modified Design”
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
Since I posted on the other story, this new one came up. I think the buildings look good and I think in a few weeks this will all be over. No one wants it to continue. Civik has helped to improve the building by asking so many questions. If we end up with a better project then I will be happy.
[Reply]
CiViK could have asked the questions when SRM and the Design Review Board were spending numerous meetings over many months with countless hours of discussion ans modification. Instead, they waited until the DRB was through, and took their complaints to City Council. That isn’t the logical way to approach this. It is the politically effective way to do it, and it worked well for CiViK. They became the DRB for the appeal.
[Reply]
Kirklander,
What has happened to this point is water under the bridge in my opinion. What Civik could have done or should have done is not as important now compared to what will be done next. We have a better design before the Council now because of Civik’s appeal. If you don’t agree, that is your prerogative. Yes, Civik and the Council are the de facto DRB in this case. The Council can run the hearing as they please so this is not Civik’s fault. The Council’s actions lead to the DRB meltdown and now it makes the most sense for the Council to rule on the design. How we got here is not as important as what we will have as a result of the process.
[Reply]
Take a look at the drawings that Mr. Butcher has included above. If I am honest with myself, this project has FAR more modulation than either Merrill Gardens or the McLeod building. It seems to fit better as the other two look like large monolithic blocks. Each was a seen as benefiting from the previous approved buildings in Kirkland.
What we are in is a continuum of ever improving designs and higher community expectations for our downtown core. This is excellent to see. The B of A building will be better than the ones before and let us all hope that the next project that comes before the DRB will be better still. If not, I will object! We should expect nothing less. This is our city. Let us constantly improve it through the public process. Let us hope we never have to go through another appeal.
I have a hope that we have weathered the worst of this storm and that our ship is sailing through to calmer seas. This whole DRB/appeal ordeal has been difficult. I hope we can learn from it and we now know what issues are important to our downtown developments. For the first time in months, I can say I am optimistic about Kirkland’s future again. Pray the Council settles this ordeal at their next meeting.
[Reply]
It does appear that from all of the upheaval and dissent that some good has come. The new design does look reasonable. It has been noted by many people on this site that they hope change is coming and that the Coucil has learned some lessons from this process.
I have to wonder if any Council members or staff at city hall monitor this site and pass along the comments. I hope that they are. Many companies now routinely monitor blog sites to ensure that they are aware of their customers concerns and ideas. I can only hope that the members of the Council are concerned enough about the thoughts of their constituents to monitor this site.
[Reply]
Kirklander, many citizens asked many questions and raised lots of concerns while this project was at the DRB and they were brushed aside. Lessons learned, I hope.
Questions/thoughts about the Q&A that are attached:
a. Why won’t SRM answer the questions about parking? Civik has made it clear that they are asking the question because of functionality and use - 40 restricted spaces are a lot for a 5700 sq foot bank. Remember on July 1 - the applicant seemed PO’d when the Mayor asked about this same issue. Civik has asked twice (in both sets of Q&A here) and something is odd about why they won’t answer. Even though they are complying with the parking code with a modification for the residential units, why won’t they answer this question?
b. On the appurtenance question, what is the June 12 letter and why is SRM so concerned about having it withdrawn? Looking at civik’s question and since Merrill Gardens has the same applicant (and I think the same planner and architect?) Their reaction makes me curious about why civik included it and even more so why SRM does not want it in the record. Rob (or anyone?) do you have the June 12 letter?
If I were on the Council (heaven forbid), I’d vote thumbs-up on August 5, but it would be important to know the answer to these issues first.
[Reply]
40 parking spaces for a bank does seem like a large number but then again, if the bank doesn’t have lots of parking, I know I would avoid going to it. It seems like SRM is not answering some questions of Civik’s because they say the questions are not a part of the appeal.
I don’t know what this letter Trooper is talking about but it would be interesting to see what it is.
[Reply]