Showing posts with label views. Show all posts
Showing posts with label views. Show all posts

Downtown Olympia Development, Views Survey Available

 

Above: This view of Mt. Rainier across downtown Olympia from the Fourth Avenue Bridge becomes obscured by the nine-story Capital Center Building as one travels into downtown. A new survey by the City of Olympia asks questions regarding downtown development, pedestrian improvements, types of preferred bicycle lanes, viewsheds, and more.

By Janine Gates

The City of Olympia is encouraging everyone in Thurston County to take a survey to help shape downtown Olympia.  As noted in a recent Little Hollywood story on March 14, part of the survey includes weighing in on downtown views to area landmarks.

The survey, part of the city’s ongoing Downtown Strategy planning efforts, is online at www.olympiawa.gov/DTSthrough March 27. The city says it takes about 15-20 minutes to complete.

City of Olympia city planner Amy Buckler says the city has heard “loud and clear” from a previous survey that the city must address parking, sea level rise and homelessness issues. 

Based on this survey and other plans, the city’s next steps in the Downtown Strategy will focus on design, view protection, historic preservation, business and development standards and incentives, and more specific strategies related to housing, retail and economic development.

It took Little Hollywood about 35 minutes to read through the survey questions, much less answer them. 

When asked about the nature of the questions, and their tendency toward the need for significant zoning and code changes, Buckler responded that the survey reflects what the city has heard in the public process so far, and include the input of their consultant’s recommendations.

“It is likely the city will update some development standards, and perhaps zoning, if needed, to align with the guiding framework of the Downtown Strategy. We are waiting for a guiding framework to be vetted through the…process of public engagement and analysis and discussion with city council on May 10 before scoping what updates might be needed. The guiding framework will drive any needed updates….”

Questions about viewsheds are included about mid-way through the survey, after questions about development scenarios, shared streets for pedestrian and intersection improvements, festival streets, types of bicycle lanes, and more.

Some questions are hard to argue with:

1. In the waterfront area, improve upon existing attractions to create a vibrant, attractive, family-friendly destination, with emphasis on the surrounding natural environment and many landmark views. Maintain vibrant and visible gathering places for public activity and events; increase waterfront recreation opportunities; and create inviting pedestrian connections to the historic shopping district, marinas, Farmers Market, Hands on Children’s Museum, LOTT Wet Center, and Capitol Campus.

On a scale of 1-5, with (1) being very important and (5) being not important, how important is this overall concept to you?

This question specifically involves the Northeast area neighborhood:

3. In the "Artisans/Tech" area, improve upon Port and LOTT activities and existing warehouses to create a mixed-use, artisan, culinary arts, and tech hub that includes affordable commercial space, housing (especially for artists), studio/workshop, gallery, live/work, and retail space. Encourage the reuse of industrial buildings and diverse, eclectic, energy- and water-efficient architecture. Ensure that visitors of all ages feel safe and comfortable arriving by bus, foot, bike, or car to participate in exciting education and recreation opportunities. Spur mixed-income residential development to support car-free lifestyles near the Transit Center. A more active atmosphere, redevelopment of blighted or underused sites, good design and continued clean and safe efforts by the City and other partners generate a feeling of safety in this area.

On a scale of 1-5, with (1) being very important and (5) being not important, how important is this overall concept to you?

Regarding the future of the Southeast area neighborhood, this question provides the only “not sure/don’t care” option in the questionnaire, among other options:

13. This area has significant potential for growth as a residential neighborhood. We have heard a range of preferences for the style of residential development in this area, sometimes a preference for tall residential buildings and other times for smaller scale residential development like townhouses, small lot homes, and low-rise multifamily buildings.  Assuming the same number of units are added in both scenarios described, check the circle that best represents your preference.

Above: Now it's gone - the view of Mt. Rainier becomes obscured by the nine story Capital Center Building as one travels into downtown Olympia.

Survey Questions about Views

The viewsheds for potential analysis have changed since the city’s March 3 Land Use and Environment meeting and now includes a new viewshed: City Hall to the Capitol Dome. The photo used to illustrate this view is from the sidewalk outside city hall on Cherry Street.

Two potential viewsheds were removed from the list: Marathon Park to Mt. Rainier, because it does not exist, and the effect of the 1063 Building, currently under construction, on the view of the Capitol Dome from downtown.

The survey uses computer generated illustrations of two viewsheds under consideration. City staff is in need of a photo from the navigation channel into Olympia on Budd Inlet, and a photo of downtown Olympia from the beach area of Priest Point Park. 

City staff provided Little Hollywood a map that indicates that the desired viewshed from the navigation channel is from the coordinates of 47 03.960 N and 122 54.509 W, which is roughly the center of the channel across from Swantown Marina.

Buckler confirmed that a photo of the viewshed from the East Bay pocket park to the Capitol Building featured in Little Hollywood’s March 14 article is one of ten proposed viewsheds slated for analysis. 

That view runs through Port of Olympia parcels 2 and 3 which are slated for development by local developer Walker John. Concept plans by architect Ron Thomas are not yet available to the public, Thomas said in an interview with Little Hollywood last month. If those parcels are developed as proposed, the public’s view of the Capitol Building from the park would be obscured.

If there are additional important viewsheds related to downtown that you think the city may have missed or if you have photos of your favorite views related to downtown that you want to share with the city, send them to dts@ci.olympia.wa.us.

Submitted photos will become part of the public record and may be used for public engagement purposes, so the city asks that you indicate who should receive credit for the photo. Views must be from public observation points within downtown or looking through downtown to landmark views, such as Mt. Rainer, the Black Hills, Puget Sound, Olympic Mountains, Capitol Dome, says the city.

For more information, contact Amy Buckler, Senior Planner, City of Olympia, at (360) 570-5847 or abuckler@ci.olympia.wa.us.


Downtown Olympia Views Studied by City


Above: On one of their frequent walks to the popular Madison Scenic Park, Eastside neighborhood residents Michael McFarlan and Ginger appreciate the view of the Capitol Building, downtown and the territorial Black Hills on Monday morning. This view is one of several priority viewsheds to be analyzed by the City of Olympia as part of a downtown strategy planning effort. 

By Janine Gates

Located at the southernmost tip of Puget Sound, Olympia, Washington has long been described as having the most spectacular views of any state capitol.

From downtown Olympia looking north, one sees Budd Inlet and the Olympic Mountains. To the south, the state Capitol Dome, the fifth-tallest masonry dome in the world and the tallest in North America, rising 287 feet high. To the east, Mt. Rainier. Looking west, the territorial Black Hills.

On March 3, City of Olympia staff briefed councilmembers serving on the city’s Land Use and Environment Committee on the next steps for analyzing several viewsheds within downtown. 

A viewshed is the line of sight between an observation point and a view. The purpose of the city's analysis is to protect or enhance existing views, not to create new viewsheds. 

The recently updated Comprehensive Plan shifted an emphasis from protecting certain views from public streets to protecting and enhancing views from public gathering places. The city says that the observation points to be analyzed must be in public spaces either in downtown or look through downtown to a landmark view. 

An upcoming online city survey will offer the community an opportunity to comment on the viewsheds proposed for analysis. 

The Downtown Strategy’s process builds on past planning efforts during the Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Plan updates. At a November 2015 workshop, participants prioritized certain viewsheds with observation points within downtown that were most important: the Olympic Mountains, the Capitol Dome, Budd Inlet, and Capitol Lake.

With the input of community members and city staff, consultants will analyze up to ten community-valued viewsheds. The analysis will also consider zoning and potential building height increases. Using 3D graphics, modeling will show each view as it exists now, if redeveloped under current zoning, and under any zoning options being explored.

The viewshed analysis will be presented at a June Downtown Strategy workshop and viewshed protection recommendations will be offered to the city council by August.

Above: The viewshed of downtown and the Capitol Building from a pocket park on East Bay Drive as seen on Monday afternoon. If the Port of Olympia parcels are developed as proposed near Chestnut and Olympia Avenue NE, the view of the Capitol Building would likely be obstructed. 

It is unclear from city documents which East Bay viewshed the city is considering analyzing: there is another pocket park further north on East Bay Drive, created in 2004 through a community partnership with the East Bay Drive Neighborhood Association, the Port of Olympia, and the City of Olympia.

Viewshed Priorities

The city has already identified five priority viewsheds for analysis: the Capitol Campus to Budd Inlet with a view across the isthmus, the effect of the 1063 Building on the view of the Capitol Dome, Madison Scenic Park to the Capitol Dome and the Black Hills, the Puget Sound navigation channel view to the Capitol Dome, and the West Bay Park view to Mt. Rainier through downtown.

Five viewsheds under consideration for analysis include Capitol Way and Union Avenue to the Olympic Mountains, Marathon Park to Mt. Rainier, Park of the Seven Oars (near the Harrison Avenue NW and Olympic Way NW roundabout) to Mt. Rainier, Priest Point Park to the Capitol Dome, and the East Bay Waterfront Park to the Capitol Dome.

Above: The 1063 Building is currently under construction on Capitol Way. During the design process, the city made its concerns known to the state about the five story, 215,000 square foot office building. When completed, the building will block the view of the Capitol Building from downtown. Conversely, views of Budd Inlet and the Olympics, as seen here from the Capitol Campus, will soon be obscured. The city does not have zoning authority over the Capitol Campus. Photo taken February 25, 2016.

Several community members attended the March 3 Land Use and Environment committee meeting, commented on the limited scope of the viewshed analysis, and urged the inclusion of other views. 

Krag Unsoeld commented that Mt. Rainier cannot be seen from Marathon Park on Deschutes Parkway, so that particular viewshed should not be listed, and instead be replaced with another viewshed.

Former City of Olympia mayor Bob Jacobs also commented, saying that view protection should involve the whole city, not just downtown.

“The first step in this kind of process should be a community conversation to define what is important to community members about views,” said Jacobs. 

Jacobs is active with Friends of the Waterfront, a local group that has advocated for view protections for several years. That group offered city staff a specific list of comments, questions, and suggested views.

“….We also note the need for clarification of some terms. For instance, what exactly is meant by Capitol Dome? Just the dome? Or does this include the columns beneath the dome? Does it include the Temple of Justice and other buildings? Wilder and White designed the ‘Capitol Group’ to appear as a single structure when viewed from the north. Also, what exactly is the ‘Navigation Channel’ and where is it? Clear definitions will be necessary to the development of clear regulations….” asks Friends of the Waterfront in their letter.

In response to the city’s call for suggested viewsheds for analysis in addition to those already published, the group offered: Capitol Campus to Mt. Rainier, Port Plaza to Capitol Dome, Percival Landing to Capitol Dome, a larger stretch of East Bay Drive to the Capitol Dome (not just the mini-park), Rt. 101 at the Red Lion hotel to Mt. Rainier, Harrison Avenue roundabout to Mt. Rainier (broader than Seven Oars Park), lower roundabout to Mt. Rainier, Deschutes Parkway to Mt. Rainier, Lakeridge Drive to Capitol Dome and Capitol Lake, San Francisco Street to East Bay Drive and Capitol Dome, Eastern Washington Butte at Heritage Park to Mt. Rainier, Port Plaza viewing tower to Mt. Rainier, views of East Bay and West Bay ridgelines, and the Thurston County Courthouse to the Capitol Dome.

Editor's Note/Full Disclosure: Janine Gates also commented at the March 3 meeting. Providing personal pictures as examples, she said the viewshed of landmarks should be expanded to include the experience of coming into downtown and take into consideration the special viewpoints of children and animals who see the city from different perspectives. She also asked that the city conduct a nighttime viewshed analysis to determine the impact of light pollution. Light pollution from the 123 4th Avenue Building and the nine story Capitol Center Building, if it is ever redeveloped, she said, would mar the nighttime beauty of landmarks such as the Capitol Building. With regard to sea-level rise issues, she also suggested an underwater view analysis of downtown.

For more information about the viewshed analysis, go to www.olympiawa.gov or contact Amy Buckler, Senior Planner, City of Olympia, at (360) 570-5847. The city welcomes descriptions and photo(s) of your favorite view(s) which can be emailed to Buckler at DTS@ci.olympia.wa.us.

Above: An unencumbered view of Mt. Rainier from downtown Olympia is one of the most spectacular, cherished sights enjoyed by community members. Photo taken from a West Bay Drive office building parking lot in May 2012.

Tumwater in Negotiations with Heidgerken to Obtain Old Brewhouse Tower

 

Above: The historic Old Brewhouse in Tumwater as viewed from the former keghouse in October 2014. The City of Tumwater is seeking public comment on a final environmental impact statement for a planned land use action for the 32 acre property owned by George Heidgerken. The city is also in negotiations with Heidgerken to obtain the 110 year old, six story tower. 

Planned Action Conversations Continue, Another Public Hearing to be Scheduled Soon

By Janine Gates

After a lengthy conversation at their Tuesday night work session, Tumwater city councilmembers agreed to hold another public hearing on the planned action land use ordinance for the historic Old Brewery area.

The hearing will be scheduled soon, and no decisions about the property will be made at their next council meeting.

City administrator John Doan also acknowledged that the city is indeed in negotiations with Old Brewhouse owner George Heidgerken about the historic, six story tower.

Doan said that it makes economic sense for Heidgerken to give up the tower because it is in the worst shape with the least amount of square footage of any building on the property.  

“If we acquired it somehow, how much would that cost? (For Heidgerken) to develop, it doesn’t have a lot of value. It’s in a tough spot…it’s an expensive building…with not a lot of return. There are certainly a lot of business reasons why he would want to turn that over to the city,” said Doan.

Doan suggested that the council create a developer’s agreement that would clarify the parameters of the arrangement. That agreement would most likely look like a deed to transfer ownership and some piece of land in the form of an easement so the property could be accessed.  

If obtained by the city, Doan said, the tower could be the impetus for obtaining state grants and future fundraising opportunities to restore the tower, independent of what Heidgerken does with the rest of the property. 

Doan later told Little Hollywood that he hopes to have an agreement with Heidgerken within a couple of months.

Councilmembers agreed to hold a public hearing about the city’s possible acquisition of the tower separate from a public hearing on the proposed planned action land use ordinance.

“It would be a big step for the city. The desire to acquire (the tower) is an opportunity again at long last. There would be a lot of good to have people comment on it,” said Councilmember Tom Oliva. Oliva is a co-founder of the Old Brewhouse Foundation, a local nonprofit formed in 2008 that seeks to acquire, restore and provide public use of the tower.

At a February 16 public hearing about the proposed planned action land use ordinance, Heidgerken dangled the possibility of donating the tower in front of the council, which gave the appearance that he was doing so in exchange for the council’s approval of his desired full build out land use scenario for the 32 acre property.

Public comments since the hearing have urged the city to secure a commitment from Heidgerken in writing first, then move forward with a land use decision, if what he was offering was a legitimate option.

Above: The 400 page Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed planned action land use ordinance for the Old Brewery property welcomed each councilmember at their work session meeting on Tuesday.

New Information about Planned Action

Staff also came prepared for Tuesday's work session with a new, draft 10 page supplement to the 400 page Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed planned action land use ordinance.

The document called Exhibit C clarifies the scope of what the planned action is approving and made the restoration and preservation of the existing historic structures along the Deschutes River as part of the plan. 

Councilmembers Joan Cathey and Nicole Hill in particular asked many questions about the implications of a planned action, and requested that a developer’s agreement be written that would ensure that some kind of phasing process would prioritize public amenities, should the developer bail on the project.

Councilmember Hill said she still had a hard time grasping the fact that the property owner could rearrange the proposed uses for the property within the footprint allowed. She suggested that parking be placed up near the RST Cellars Building.

Doan admitted that the proposed 1,000 vehicle parking garage where it is currently proposed in the hillside would obstruct views to and from the historic Schmidt House and that its environmental impact that has not yet been assessed.

Doan also said that it is always a possibility that a developer could bail mid-way through a project but expressed confidence in Heidgerken.

“I think if he gets started down there, that he’ll finish….”

Councilmember Cathey said she is uncomfortable approving the project up front without knowing the full description.

Councilmember Debbie Sullivan said she sensed fear and anxiety by fellow councilmembers that she couldn’t grasp.

“When we get into these processes, there are no absolutes. I think there’s checks and balances in the whole process...I don’t think it’s going to be an out of control project. Are we ever going to be able to control 100 percent of everything? I don’t think so,” said Sullivan.

She said the conversation would be different if councilmembers were talking about the modern brewery properties, which was how it was originally envisioned. Sullivan said she is looking at this project holistically as an opportunity for making Tumwater more economically attractive to investors.

Councilmember Hill responded that she didn’t think she was commenting out of fear, but was responding to all the public comment and trying to ask appropriate questions. 

Councilmember Cathey responded that she too didn’t feel fearful, but felt profoundly protective of the culturally and environmentally sensitive property.

Mayor Pete Kmet acknowledged it was a challenging project and said that to make the area work, a residential component is needed. Since the construction of a new building was nixed by staff as unfeasible, Kmet suggested that a part of the warehouse could be “torn off” to create condominiums.

“…We already know through the marketing analysis that this is a challenging project. To do anything down there will cost a lot of money and anything we can do to streamline that is going to increase the chances that something will actually happen to preserve it….If we end up being successful in acquiring the tower, having this (planned action) done allows us to move ahead with preservation. If we don’t, we’re back to square zero and doing this process again….” said Kmet.


For more photos and many past articles about the Old Brewery, George Heidgerken, the stop work order imposed upon Heidgerken for environmental violations at the site in October 2014, groundwater monitoring, the Old Brewhouse Foundation, historic preservation, and the planned action land use alternatives currently before the Tumwater city council, go to Little Hollywood, www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.comand type key words in the search button.

For more information about the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Exhibit C, Supplement to Tumwater Brewery Planned Action, or to provide public comment, contact Chris Carlson, Permit Manager, City of Tumwater, 555 Israel Road SW, Tumwater, (360) 754-4180, ccarlson@ci.tumwater.wa.us, or City of Tumwater councilmembers at council@ci.tumwater.wa.us


Part Two: Fast Tracking a Vision for Downtown Olympia under a Community Renewal Area Plan


On May 15, there will be another group meeting that will include property owners to “review and fine tune” the results of the April 5 and April 16 workshops.

Above: A birds-eye view of downtown Olympia from West Bay yesterday afternoon. Many of the properties seen above are under review by a potential city Community Renewal Area plan.
 
By Janine Unsoeld

An active visioning process for downtown Olympia is well underway and almost nobody knows about it. The results of this vision for downtown Olympia could seriously influence the built environment of downtown Olympia.
The city council-driven Community and Economic Revitalization Committee (CERC) was created to deal with downtown blight through a community renewal area plan.

A citizen advisory committee was selected to advise the committee. The 30 plus member group has been meeting on a regular basis, fast-tracking a vision for downtown Olympia’s isthmus area, meeting several times in the past couple months.
The public is not scheduled to be included in the process until this coming July, when the community will be invited to comment on just two possible downtown and isthmus-area scenarios.

Above: The ultimate vision of blight - the vacant, nine story Capitol Center Building on 5th Avenue depicted in its own shards of glass on the sidewalk, earlier this spring.

Participant Perspective
 

Local land use and shoreline management attorney Allen Miller is a participant in the city’s citizen advisory committee for developing a potential Community Renewal Area (CRA). He is optimistic about dealing with the monstrosity everyone asks and wonders about: the nine-story Capitol Center Building, best known as The Mistake on the Lake.
“I think we are very close to correcting the greatest land use error in the history of Olympia which was allowing the Capitol Center Building to be built in 1965 in the historic view corridor of the Wilder and White and Olmsted Brothers plans for the State Capitol Campus. The plan for the State Capitol Campus is recognized around the country as the greatest example of City Beautiful Movementarchitecture in the world.
 
“The current partnership among city, county, state, tribe, and private philanthropy is leading to the purchase of the Capitol Center Building and taking it down.  In 1956, Governor Arthur Langlie and Mayor Amanda Smith came up with a “Fifty Year Plan for Olympia and the Capitol,” which planned the isthmus as a great civic area.  We are finally implementing that plan over 50 years later.” 

Miller provided links to videos about the vision of downtown Olympia without the Capitol Center Building: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa_vNP54Hg8and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHqiC5jbuPA
Parking at Capitol Center Building/The Views on 5th Avenue/Mistake on the Lake

While the urban design workshops held on April 5 and April 16 encouraged free thinking, many participants seemed willing to outright ignore actual comprehensive plan values, zoning, and current and ongoing legal restrictions governing our unique shoreline features.
For example, a hard-won July 2013 hearing officer decision definitively precludes use of the parking lot on the Capitol Center block for any purpose related to the building. The decision has a long and complicated history.

In 2011, the City of Olympia issued a notice of land use approval and SEPA determination of non-significance allowing The Views to continue with its conversion of the nine-story Capital Center Building on Fifth Avenue from an office building into a hotel.
(To read these and other isthmus-related stories at www.janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com– December 2, 2010 and February 16, 2011 type keywords into search button such as “hotel” and “isthmus.”)

Miller successfully represented former Governor Dan Evans and others in two years of litigation that followed, related to the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). The Capitol Center project site actually consists of two different land use parcels involving two parking lots located within 200 feet of Budd Inlet, thus falling under shoreline management regulation. In response to the threat of SMA regulation, building owners elected to detach one parking lot from the site.
Calling it a “classic piecemealing” maneuver, the city hearing examiners and the county’s Superior Court judges saw this as the owner’s way of getting around the constraints the SMA would impose.

The decision by Mark Scheibmeir, City of Olympia hearing examiner, said that the hotel or any commercial use on the project site shall be prohibited from using the adjoining parking lots or any property within the shoreline jurisdiction unless the owner of the property has complied with all applicable permitting requirements of the Shoreline Management Act.
Keep that in mind as you read the next design workshop group visioning process on April 16.

Above: From left to right - Jim Randall, Keith Stahley, Rob Richards, Stuart Drebick, Renee Sundee, and Olympia Mayor Stephen Buxbaum participate at the April 16 urban design workshop.

April 16: Sample Table Discussion/Visioning Process

Another downtown visioning opportunity was offered to the Community Economic Revitalization Committee, citizen advisory committee members and property owners on April 16 in Olympia City Hall chambers to contribute their design vision for downtown Olympia.

This was billed as a make-up session for those who could not attend the workshop on April 5. There were two tables of participants.

One table was composed of Rob Richards, Capital Recovery Center; Stuart Drebick, West Olympia Business Association member, contractor, and downtown property owner; Keith Stahley, city planning manager; Jim Randall, attorney and past president of the West Olympia Business Association; Mayor Stephen Buxbaum; and Renee Sunde of the Thurston County Economic Development Council.
As I did for the April 5 workshop, I listened to the visioning rationale of one full conversation. This table conversation was largely dominated by Drebick, who immediately asked Leonard Bauer, deputy director of the city planning and community development department, at the outset of the workshop, “Are we stuck with 35 feet?”

Bauer responded, “As you look at things, note that it’s a consensus by the group, considering the atmosphere and place that we’re at right now.” 
“So is this something that will really be built or is it pie in the sky? The worse thing that this space can be is a park,” he told his table group.

“Keep in mind, as housing gets built, it will bring people downtown,” said Renee Sundee, referring to the proposed seven story Columbia Heights project.
“I haven’t seen any dirt turned yet,” responded Drebick.

“It’ll get done,” said Buxbaum.

“I’ll believe it when I see it,” replied Drebick.
“People stop at Storman’s before they go home…a park is nice during the summer months, but during the winter months, there’s nothing to keep people downtown. If there was a hotel or a small convention center, that would do it. Whether or not that can happen politically is another question,” said Drebick.

“Structured parking someplace is key,” said Stahley.
“The Cherry Street building looks nice, all the parking is inside the building, but they had the height to do it,” said Drebick.

“We’ve estimated that each stall in this area would be $40,000 - $45,000,” said Stahley.
“That’s expensive,” said Drebick.

“It will take the city pencil to make it happen, otherwise it won’t pencil out,” said Drebick.
Discussing the building that Traditions is currently located on Water Street, someone suggested that if it is made housing, we need parking.

“That street is not critical – we could consider two story parking. All those buildings are knockdowns, and we can reorient them,” said Buxbaum.
“If Kolb keeps redeveloping his properties to include housing over the next three to four years, that’s a lot of housing,” mused Drebick.

“Is there demand for it?” someone asked.

“Yes,” said Buxbaum.

Skeptical, Debrick said, “I’ll wait to see them rented.”

“A four story building is economical to build. Beyond that, you get into other issues,” said Drebick.
“In your honest opinion, Mayor, about the Capitol Center Building, are the Bob Jacobs' of the world going to allow it to be built? Hotel or housing, that’s it for me,” said Drebick, loudly.

Former Olympia mayor Bob Jacobs was standing nearby, overseeing the conversation and activities at the other table, composed of Councilmember Julie Hankins; Connie Phegley, owner of Old School Pizza; Paul Knox, executive director of the local United Way; Kevin Stormans, owner of Bayview grocery store; and Leo Rancour, of the Olympia Yacht Club.

Dodging the question, Buxbaum asked Richards, who hadn’t yet spoken, “What do you think?”

“We don’t want to get a neighborhood that’s dead at 6 p.m.,” said Richards.
“I think a boutique hotel could be very appealing. This could be a prime area,” said Sundee, who also did not speak up much.

“If the city openly encouraged it, the hoteliers will come. Right now, it has stink on it,” said Drebick.
Stahley said that in 2007-08, residential was explored for the building, but no exterior balconies could be built on it based on the way it’s constructed.

Moving to the Olympia Yacht Club, it was discussed that the club is interested in getting off the water.
“We could have high-end housing over the Yacht Club, but condos don’t sell in this town – they have a stigma in Olympia for some reason…I don’t know….,” said Drebick.

Stahley introduced the dilemma on Percival Landing.
“Right now, it hangs out there. It’s protection for sea level rise and storm surge. That allows the city to save an incredible amount of money in concrete for a seawall…” Stahley explained that the state Department of Natural Resources leases its land behind Bayview to the Yacht Club.

“They park trailers and stuff there.”
Sundee encouraged a retail, storefront experience along Fourth Avenue.

“Yes, that’s what we want,” said Stahley.
“I’d love to encourage something like that,” said Buxbaum, as he proceeded to place red-colored chips representing retail along the backside of Bayview.

“You mean reorientation?” asked Stahley.
There’s your park,” said Drebick, as he plopped a green colored park chip onto the ImageSource building, formerly the Kentucky Fried Chicken. “That guy said he’s not attached to the building,” Debrick said, referring to building owner Vicktor Zvirzdys.

“Connect Percival Landing, because there’s not a lot of places for people to watch the salmon…I think that’s just dynamite!” said Drebick.
“What about a mid-rise building?” asked Sundee.

“Thirty five feet is not mid-rise,” said Drebick.
Stahley said, “Well, a park needs parking,” and rearranged the red chips.

Drebick, who was still talking about the extension of Percival Landing and being near the water, continued, “It’s good to go smell it, feel life and death….”
Buxbaum put down some green space.

Sharp-eyed Drebick said, “Is that more park?”
Yea,” replied Buxbaum.

Buxbaum started encroaching on the current street between the Capitol Center Building and the Heritage Park fountain block, saying, “Don’t restrict yourselves to the gridlines.”
“It’s very expensive to develop unless you get density,” protested Drebick. “There’s too much bad dirt. The Westside has good dirt.”

Stahley said that back in the 80s it was suggested that Storman’s raise the height of their building.
“They didn’t have a color that says hotel?” Sundee asked Drebick, as he cut up a piece of yellow paper, wrote HOTEL on it, and plopped it down.

Drebick laughed. “Yea, what does that say to you?”
So, using a bit of rock, paper, scissors psychology, Drebick single-handedly converted the nine story Capitol Center Building, aka, the Mistake on the Lake, into a hotel.

And there it sat until time for the evening’s project was drawing to a close, and Buxbaum could stand it no longer.

Above: Stuart Drebick created his vision for a hotel on the isthmus, and there it sat until Mayor Stephen Buxbaum could stand it no longer, and suggested that the building, in some form, be the location for a new library. 
 
The discussion finally turned to the hotel/Mistake on the Lake and a suggestion was made by Buxbaum that the building, in some form, be the location for a new library. The idea was instantly rejected by Drebick.

“People who go to the library are not people with money, to be blunt. Do we not all carry a library in our pockets?” as he pulled out his smartphone.
“The library has some of the best programming in town,” retorted Stahley.

“It’s the only place for a library and it would require a community compromise,” continued Buxbaum. “I can see taking down the building and putting up a four story building…it’s a building past its useful life. It’s dysfunctional.”
“A library isn’t a revenue producer,” said Sundee.

“Where the library is now is underused,” said Buxbaum.
Drebick did not think it belonged downtown.

“A library creates foot traffic – it’s a big plus because it’s a self-supporting facility. Make it a civic center that’s exquisitely beautiful,” said Buxbaum.
“Who pays for it?” someone said.

“A coalition between those who want to get rid of it and those who want a library. It’s a large number of people,” responded Buxbaum.
“OK, well, that’s the politics of this town,” sniffed Drebick.

“If you combine retail and commercial, and some amenities….” someone said.
“I can’t climb on that boat,” said Drebick.

Randall said that the downtown library is creepy.
“What about something like a Powell’s bookstore?” offered Sundee, referring to the awesome Portland shop.

“You have to think of highest and best use, where you’re getting true financial benefit,” said Randall.
“A library gives families three things: someplace to take the kids, a place to go out to eat and shop, get groceries, exercise and entertain, all within the space,” said Buxbaum, motioning to the general area.

“It would take you more than 10 years to pull together a plan for a library,” said Drebick.
“I don’t know,” responded Buxbaum.

Drebick began to estimate the costs to get rid of the building and redevelop it into a library. Estimates started at $20 million.
“That’s conservative,” said Randall.

Discussion ensued about creating the top three floors into condos, with the library underneath.
“I don’t think people would like living above a library,” said Sundee.

Buxbaum explained that the City of White Center created just such a project and that it appears to be a successful model.
Drebick said that he sat on a committee in 1987 for housing and not a lot has changed. “Same issues: Does it pencil? Can you rent it? Will it make money?”

Wrapping up the April 16 workshop, Buxbaum concluded, “There are choices to make, options with very little public investment, explain to the public what a return on investment means, test the feasibility and come up with a range of options worthy of consideration.”
Discussion by the Community and Economic Revitalization Committee

The CERC committee met on April 21 to discuss the results of the two design workshops and figure out next steps.

“Property ownership, financing, developers, and the community - how does this all fit together so it’s achievable? Just because there’s property ownership does not mean there’s development,” began Stahley.
Jones said that out of the isthmus discussions and workshops, sea level rise was not discussed.

“Regarding its impact to the isthmus, I think we need something of a reality check….blowing up bladders, creating berms, I have no idea of the magnitude. Bringing it into the discussions sooner makes sense….putting Percival Landing - millions of dollars - over the water doesn’t make sense,” said Jones.”
Stahley agreed. Discussing the Oyster House, Stahley said that there’s not too much the city can do to protect it.

“It’s one of the most challenging areas, how to protect it.”
Stahley said that addressing the issues of Percival Landing and sea level rise issues are currently underfunded.

Next Steps
Economic feasibility involving fiscal issues, revenues, property taxes, and costs associated with the design workshop ideas is scheduled to be presented to the group in May.

The consultant will soon be distilling the visions created by the eight tables of participants and creating a computer model to refine common themes and areas of disagreement.
On May 15, there will be another group meeting that will include property owners, says Stahley, to “review and fine tune” the results of the April 5 and April 16 workshops.

On May 29, the Community and Economic Revitalization Committee (CERC) will meet to discuss this input and the scenarios developed. Also at the May 29 meeting, the CERC will consider next steps and develop a recommendation for the full city council to consider on June 10.
Next: Part Three: Fast Tracking a Vision for Downtown Olympia under a Community Renewal Area Plan - More Participant Perspectives

Above: Amongst broken glass, graffiti, and discarded toilet paper, two daffodils try their best to keep up appearances outside the vacant Capitol Center Building on 5th Avenue in downtown Olympia earlier this spring.
 

Labels