Planning Commission to recommend Approval of Kirkland Parkplace PAR and Costco Gas Station PAR
At the November 13, 2008 meeting of the Kirkland Planning Commission, the majority voted to recommend to the City Council the approval of:
- Touchstone Parkplace Private Amendment Request (PAR)
- Costco Private Amendment Request (PAR)
The first part of the meeting was a study session for the Touchstone Parkplace PAR. Some of the issues addressed by staff to the satisfaction of the majority of the Planning Commission were:
- Did the PAR proposal constitute spot zoning?
- Was the 5th story option vested?
- Does a 15% view blockage constitute a taking?
- The effect of the petition
- Accuracy of traffic and parking mitigation
- Sustainability – Touchstone’s intent to achieve LEAD Gold Certification for the core and shell of the project.
The latter part of the meeting was a Public Hearing on the Costco PAR. Costco is requesting an amendment to allow a gas station to be built on property the company currently owns and uses as a parking lot to the north of the store. Several citizens of Kirkland spoke before the Commission.
The Planning Commission voted to recommend both PARs to the City Council.
Documents for download:
Park Place (Touchstone) Private Amendment Request (PAR) File No. ZON07-00016
PUBLIC HEARING – Costco Wholesale Private Amendment Request, File No. ZON07-00017
The audio of the Nov 13th meeting is available at:
www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/depart/Planning/Planning_Commission/Planning_Commission_Meetings_Online.htm
Print This Article
Posted by Rob Butcher on Monday, November 17, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Filed under Headlines · Tagged with City Council, Development, Downtown, Parkplace, Planning Commission
Print This Article
Related Stories:
|
|
|
|
|
This decision speaks well for the Planning Commission and holds out a somewhat brighter ray of hope for the future and economic health of Kirkland.
Are we going to bypass the economic downturn of the next 12-18 months? Probably not. Will we have a better chance to come out healthy at the other end? Absolutely!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
john,
i can agree that we wont bypass the recession because it will hit every part of the country… maybe the NW last… how long does it take to build these proposals… will we be ready in time for the next cycle or too early… too late…. i woulnt want to put money down in this economy now. i am glad you feel good about the future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It should be noted that plans for the Bellevue Costco have now been cancelled (apparently as a result of too much red tape involved with the stream running through the former Kmart property) so the revenue impact on the Kirkland Costco won’t be affected nearly as much as the report states (plans for a Costco in Redmond are still in the works, although construction was expected to have begun on that by now.) I do remain skeptical about their numbers on the parking impact of adding the gas station (it’s hard enough to find parking there on a weekend as is, I can’t imagine it will be any easier with less parking to go around,) but overall I don’t have any major objections to the plan. Then again, I don’t live that close to the place, so YMMV.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
About 5 years ago I thought the old KMart was going to be turned into a Costco grocery store but it never happened.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There were plans in the works at that time, but they ended up never materializing. In this case, the plan was to tear down the old Kmart and build a regular Costco in its place, but ultimately, the cost of dealing with the necessary improvents that would have been required for Kelsey Creek appears to have killed the project. I suspect that those regulations will probably block any development from happening for the foreseeable future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Now that the Parkplace has been recommended can we expect the City Council to agree or cancel the deal? I want to know what the chances are for an appeal by Civic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Framer,
I think you are referring to the CRD (Kirkland Citizens for Responsible Development) rather than CiViK. Back in March or April, CiViK appealed the BofA project and won the appeal before the City Council. Then the whole thing went to Supreme Court. A settlement agreement between the BofA builder and the City/CiViK has been negotiated. The City Council will vote on it tonight (keep your fingers crossed!).
As for an appeal of Parkplace, that is premature at this point. I suspect that adjacent property owners may appeal the project if the City Council approves it as they have hinted at such a move during public hearings. That is still a big IF. The City Council may not approve the proposed project and if that is the case then we be left with the alternative: an office park.
Thanks for your comments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Planning Commission to recommend Approval of Kirkland Parkplace PAR”
THANK GOD! THANK BUDDHA! THANK DARWIN!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Framer, I think you mean CRD instead of CiViK – that (CRD) is the group I’d predict to file an appeal, if any.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Framer;
I refer you to the case of KirklandCRD vs God.
Whereas ‘God’ did, with malice of forethought, produce view-blocking meteorological formations (hereafter referred to as ‘clouds’) KirklandCRD is filing for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to prevent ‘God’ from blocking any views from the properties located at 520 Kirkland Way (aka the law offices of Davidson, Czeisler & Kilpatric, attorneys at law). In the event that ‘God’ creates, builds, constructs or otherwise manifests a ‘view-blocking’ object within a 360 degree circumference of said property, then ‘God’ can expect a lawsuit stopping such construction and ordering it’s immediate removal.
FURTHERMORE; petitioner KirklandCRD contends that If ‘God’ makes an argument that clouds are necessary for the health of the region – an argument CRD finds spurious – then KirklandCRD requests that these clouds be constructed in Totem Lake. Furthermore, these clouds should be limited to a size not to exceed one acre in total mass and no more than 88 feet tall.
FURTHERMORE; KirklandCRD requests relief in the form of the following: ‘God’ shall provide sunshine and clear skies 365 days a year for that area commonly known as 520 Kirkland Way. In an attempt to provide quid pro quo and the illusion of fairness, KirklandCRD will allow darkness during the hours of 9pm to 5am daily – to be adjusted as KirklandCRD sees fit.
.
.
.
So Framer, I think the short answer is YES, Park Place can expect the attorneys whose views will be blocked (oh wait, I mean Kirkland Citizens for Responsible Development) to file a lawsuit if the Park Place development gets approved.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I don’t think this is helpful in discussing points of view and trying to meet at consensus. You will probably not agree with me, but I think that some of us opposed to Parkplace just want our old friend Kirkland back. It is hard to recognize it these days. I wish we could better work together instead of arguing so much.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And when you go back to using a cell phone that weighs 2.2 pounds, when we go back to wearing mullets and mood rings…. at that point I will agree with going backwards to a day that is long gone.
Gail, I want gas to be 32 cents, I want young women to find me attractive and I want Ronald Reagan back in the White House… but those days are long gone, along with quiet, small and quaint Kirkland. Our children need a future and that future will NOT manifest itself in a late 70’s era shopping mall that should have been torn down years ago and updated to reflect the changing face of America (and that includes the People’s Republic of Kirkland).
I’d like nothing more than to go backward 20 years when I stayed out till 2am, pounded a shot of Tequila at last call and still had energy for an early morning breakfast at Sambo’s instead of going home at 10:30 and pounding back a shot of Mylanta. I’d love to go back to when cocktail waitresses wrote down their phone numbers instead of my doctor writing a scrip for a little blue pill.
Gail, you and I have to face one undeniable truth
‘Going backward just ain’t gonna happen’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
John you have a way with words and a great way to paint a picture… Unfortunately for the City and the rest of us, you hit the nail on the head. If this makes it to a council vote I am betting we will see round two of CiViK vs. SRM only in the form of KirklandCRD vs. Touchstone this time around. Buckle your seatbelts folks, here we go again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
From what I understand the Council is supposed to vote on both of these issues in December. We will see how those votes go. Hopefully they will take the recommendation of the Planning Commission and pass these proposals. I would like to thank the members of the Planning Commmission for taking the time to study the issues. From what I can see they did a very good job studying the issues and the impact and really worked to draft a recommendation that they felt would best serve the interests of the City. Thank you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0