SETTLEMENT! Bank of America Site to be developed
SRM Development, The City of Kirkland and CiViK have reached agreement on a modified plan
Documents just received from the City of Kirkland shed light on rumors that there has been progress in settlement talks surrounding the SRM Development v. City of Kirkland/CiViK lawsuit. It appears that an agreement has been reached between the parties and it is now pending approval of the Kirkland City Council on November 18th.
The settlement plans are titled, “5 STORY ALTERNATIVE – 10.31.08, ER 408/Settlement Purposes Only/Do NOT Distribute”. The entire set is available to download here.
A few items of note from the settlement plans:
An Enlarged Plaza
With the 5 story alternative the plaza is 25% larger than the original design and 50% larger than any of the settlement designs presented to date. The water feature is again the central feature and the cafe has a significant presence on the plaza with spill out space for tables and chairs. The sidewalk in front of the cafe is over 19’ wide and the plaza opens up to nearly 50’ on the north end. The pergola and enhanced paving remain.
Enlarged Plaza Features
- Moved west facade east 24 feet
- 19’ sidewalk in front of cafe
- Plaza 50’ widest point
- Interactive water feature reinstated as central focal point
- Cafe has large presence on the plaza with spill out space for tables and chairs
- Pergola over east facing bench
- Enhanced paving with concrete banding and coloring in plaza area
- Roof deck reinstated providing activity at multiple levels along Lake St
Why This Alternative?
The 5 story alternative is presented as a way of maintaining the economics of the building, yet providing significant pedestrian enhancements. By simply reallocating 6 units in the body of the 4 story building to a very small 5th floor, most of the west facade can be moved east by 24’, the width of these units. This allows for a plaza 25% larger than what was approved by the DRB, restores an 35% larger cafe space onto Lake Street, and creates a lasting public amenity on one of the main corners of downtown Kirkland.
Posted by Admin on Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 11:16 am
Filed under Development · Tagged with BofA, City Council, CiViK, Development, Downtown, Government, SRM Development
Print This Article
Related Stories:
|
|
|
|
|
This is the best news Kirkland could have hoped for! Now we need to find agreement on Parkplace and work on Kirkland’s economy again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Is there still a bank on the corner or did Civik win that point? Either way, I don’t care. I’m just happy to have the thing built and with the 5th story. Kirkland has been torn apart for too long on this issue and it is good to see movement.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Looks like the bank, Cafe and a nice large plaza with fountain are on the corner. If you look at p.4 you can see a nice drawing. http://www.kirklandviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/settlement-srm-revisions-110408.pdf
This is great news and I hope the construction on this and the McLeod project can begin soon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Its looks GREAT! I love the plaza. Lets bring life back to the streetscape.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This great news and I am so glad to see this project move forward. Can anyone tell me if Civik complain and start this whole appeal mess all over again or is this decision final and cast in stone? I guess I don’t understand how this magically gets fixed and the outcome seems very similar to the original with just some minor tweaks. I can’t see Civik just rolling over when they fought and complained so hard with prior versions and yet there are still 5 stories in this new design. Wasn’t that part of their complaint all along? Or are the new features what Civik wanted and now we can finally put this to bed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Let me get this straight: The original building was 5 stories but now it is: 5 stories! Oh yeah they are further back on the building! There was a drive thru: There still is a drive thru! There was a Bank on the corner: There still is a Bank on the corner!
I hope Civic and the gang of 4 really think they got their money’s worth out of this mess! It will be interesting to see how much this debacle cost the City. My reading of the plans shows less units which in reality is a loss in onging property tax revenue. Yes closure is good but this should never never never never have happened in the first place. All the best from the Valley of the Sun! Al
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well said!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’d make some sort of extended comment but I’m too tired from all the hoopla this raised. All I can say is WUHOO! Its finally over and we can move on! Congratulations to SRM for its persistence and let’s all hope the city and its citizens have learned some valuable lessons- they certainly cost the taxpayers and the city enough in time, energy, money, and anger to rebuild all of Lake Street and Park Lane too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The settlement is proof that you have to sue the city to get them to do the right thing. And, when did we invest CIVIK, a loose affiliation of complainers, with the right to negotiate on behalf of the City? I thought the City was the one defending the lawsuit? When was CIVIK granted the right to represent the citizens of Kirkland? Did I miss that on the ballot Tuesday? So, if I get together with a few of my neighboors can I assume my way into negotiating on behalf of the City? I don’t recall learning this in my Civics class in high school. Must have missed it, oh well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I couldn’t recall what the DRB-approved project looked like, so I looked at the City’s website. See http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/__shared/assets/Bank_of_America_DRB_Attachment_47609.pdf
The original version looked OK, but by comparison, this new version has far more visual appeal, especially for this prime corner location. Its more attractive and the bigger plaza is great. And the larger café space has more potential to attract a successful tenant on Lake Street. The rooftop garden is very nice. Kirkland Ave now has 3 retail spaces instead of 2. Not sure what they did with the parking, but I assume (hope?) that the city wouldn’t agree to this unless that worked.
As I understood it, CiViK’s appeal was not about getting rid of the bank or the drive-thru and from what I heard them say several times, CiViK made that point really clear. The bank owns its unit and banks are permitted at the ground level. Their appeal was about assuring superior retail design and use at the ground floor in order to qualify for a discretionary bonus of height, and about getting a two-story building on Lake Street. The Comprehensive Plan and the guidelines for superior retail required those things to be achieved. This new proposal seems to respond to the concerns they raised.
I looked at the square footage numbers in the DRB-approved and the new proposal. Those are in the file that Rob has posted here and in the link above. The retail and residential square footage both actually increased and so even with 6 less residential units, the average square feet per residential unit increased. Don’t know for sure, but this could mean that the construction sales tax and the ongoing property taxes are probably close (could be more) with this proposal than the original. Larger units should command better rents for them over time and if they are thinking condo sometime in the future, that also helps. Plus it’s a more attractive building for the people who will live there and the pedestrians. If they could shrink the 5th floor and increase the plaza and accomplish all of that, good for them. Looks like most of the square footage magic happened by taking from circulation, mechanical, and lobby.
From what I heard, the reason that CiViK was involved in this part of the process, was that they were named as a co-defendent in the superior court appeal which was required by state law. So the developer, the City and CiViK all had to work together if a settlement was going to be achieved. Now the City Council still has to hear it and vote on it.
I am going to be interested in hearing why they are allowing a 5th floor, but it’s small and distinctive, the setback is tremendous, and they can have the rooftop garden. If the Council approves this, then good for SRM, good for the City and good for CiViK.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Moss Babe,
I agree with your assessment of the building. As a whole, this is a handsome project.
Thank you for your analysis and for linking to the previous designs. After reviewing the designs side by side, I’ll make the following observations:
1. The three retail spaces along Kirkland Avenue are nice but it is no different from what was possible in the previous design. What is different, is the retail square footage for the two designs, Plan 1 dated January 3, 2008 and Plan 2 dated October 31, 2008:
Plan 1 Plan 2
Cafe 880SF 1285SF
Bank 5720SF 5985SF
Retail 4665SF 5030SF
2. It appears to me that much of the “square footage magic” you refer to, comes from reducing the stepbacks along Kirkland Avenue on the upper floors. The size of the decks on the second floor have been substantially reduced in size.
I would be curious to know how this all plays out from a pedestrian’s perspective walking down Kirkland Ave on either side of the street. My guess is that there will be little, if any difference in perceived height of the building. Four floors closer to the street is likely perceived similarly as 5 floors slightly further away. This, of course, is only conjecture.
3. The larger plaza is a substantial benefit of the new design. The rooftop garden is less beneficial as it will be visible to relatively few (with the exception of tall trees or overhanging vines that may or may not be apart of future landscaping).
I do support this project and I hope the Council will approve this settlement agreement. To not do so would be foolish. This compromise has required give and take by all parties involved. The settlement agreement is a way for Kirkland to put this mess behind us and to move forward.
Lessons from this experience should be learned so we do not live through another development process like this again.
This is a win for the all parties of the settlement and I hope the Council approves it on November 18th.
Thank you for your comments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m not sure that SRM would also call this settlement a win for them unless they were compensated for the project delays and additional design costs needed to get their project approved. I applaud them for sticking with it though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good points, Rob. Now that I look at the Kirkland Ave side, it does appear that some of the space was gained there, in the upper stories. Probably nicer units for the residents and maybe better rent for the owner. While some upper story setback was lost on Kirkland Avenue, it read as a 5-story building from Kirkland Ave before. Now it will read as a 4-story building from Kirkland Ave, with a small 5th floor (which if they look, may also give a glimpse of the greenery on the 4th floor roof). So, from a pedestrian across by Georges, it’s a nicer feeling overall, I think.
And I second your comments about not living through another development process like this again! I suspect all of the parties to this would agree with that!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It was not a lawsuit. City Council served as a lower court, judge and jury, and their decision, in favor of CiViK, was appealed to a higher authority, Superior Court. SRM and CiViK then negotiated an agreement so that they didn’t have to face off against each other again.
By making the units larger and reducing the number, they are able to build fewer parking spaces.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All 3 parties (SRM CiViK and City) were to be involved to arrive at this point, as I understand the document that Rob had posted earlier at http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/09/26/city-of-kirkland-enters-into-60-day-stay-with-srm/
Not sure about the number of parking spaces. In the files that Rob posted, it’s a funcion of number of bedrooms and total square footage of retail and bank, so it is probably close one way or the other.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is probably a stupid question because I am new here but why is everyone in this city so mad about down town building? Isn’t down town where the buildings are supposed to go? I live about two blocks from the b of a building and I don’t see what the complaining is all about. What is there now is falling apart! The people who don’t even live anywhere nearby are fighting to keep down town like it was in 1950 when they were little. Where I live I can work and eat without a car which is pretty cool. The more stuff that comes to my neighborhood the better it will be.my neighbors feel the same way. Let them build their building and worry about your own neighborhood.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t think it is about having new buildings built, it’s about how they are built and approved. Hardly anyone came forward to make negative comments about most of the new buildings that were approved, such as the Heathman, Kirkland Central, 128 on State, etc. Few people, if any, are determined to preserve an old bank building, at least not this one. The reason for all of the noise is because the city has a comprehensive plan and a zoning code, and some of the recent proposals either pushed the envelope or broke through it, at least according to the people who ran the appeal.
It is interesting that your comment refers to how people should worry about their own neighborhood – what is interesting about it is how often people are discredited when they speak up with concerns about their own neighborhoods, and they are called NIMBYs etc. People have the right to express their opinion, pro and con, about what is happening in their neighborhood. Downtown gets extra attention from all sorts of stakeholders, because many people go there for various reasons.
My perception is that most Kirkland citizens and downtown residents want development to happen downtown, and it’s not so much that the old buildings need to stay, it’s the qualities that distinguish Kirkland from other cities that people are trying to protect or enhance. I think what this settlement indicates, is that we just might be able to do both – have development and enhance those qualities.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
GMAB,
Well said. I also think that downtown gets additional attention from people living in the surrounding neighborhoods (I live in Norkirk so that makes me a major offender if being concerned with another neighborhood is out of line). The reason so many care about downtown is that we have a connection to it – emotional, physical, economic. My wife and I visit downtown almost daily. We entertain, dine, shop (hopefully more in the future!), and recreate downtown. It is a destination. And for everyone who lives in the Moss Bay neighborhood, I say ‘thank you’ for sharing your wonderful neighborhood with the rest of Kirkland. For us, downtown is the closest destination for groceries, gas, dining, services, etc. It feels like we have a stake in it even if others think we do not. I would venture a guess that we are not alone in how we feel about downtown Kirkland. It is a special place.
Thank you for your comments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t mind either of the buildings. The truly sad fact is that this episode exposed a very weak Mayor and city council. The final design is so insignificantly different from the original proposal that the money and time spent is a waste. This could have been negotiated from the start. The fact is that Civik did not want a bank or a drive through or a 5th floor. Sooooo, what happened? Win? I think not!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I had to chuckle when I read KoffeeJunkie’s comments. Yes, you’re right, downtown IS “where the buildings are supposed to go.” I want to be able to walk to shops, services and restaurants, too.
The number of people who actually participated in the lawsuit a part of CiViK was less that a dozen. They refuse to publicize the list of names, partially because there are so few of them. They had enough money to hire an attorney. When the developer appealed, they settled. Most relevant of all, the City Council will accept the settlement.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Looking at the plans for the building I’d give it a huge thumbs down if it were me. It’s not about how it looks or how high the building is or any of that. This is about having a real downtown and Kirkland does not need more apartments/condos, the city needs office space and real workers. People who eat lunch during the day and help keep places in business.
I’m tired of the same old condo buildings and crapola….. give me some people who daily work in teh are, that want to eat out at lunch once and awhile or grab a morning coffee. Kirkland always thinks they are so smart but it’s the nicest ghost town in the state. One quarter of the places downtown are closed or close to being dead in the water.
Love how the city used to charge for parking in the morning because people stopped for coffee…… since they killed that parking revenue and businesses they now charge for parking at night and kill the late night business. Love it. City run by a bunch of [edited by admin]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
nicest ghost town in the state. God I love it!
Please forgive me if I stteal that line.
Not certain what word was edited, but there are so many to choose from…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Demolition of the old BofA building has begun.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0