|
April , 2002 RE: Proposed Urban Waterfront — Housing District Comprehensive Plan Amendment This document supplements the Proposed Urban Waterfront — Housing District Comprehensive Plan Amendment letter submitted on April , 2002. It details our understanding of current ordinance and comprehensive plan language, and outlines concerns we have with the proposed amendment. EXISTING ORDINANCE & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LANGUAGE Olympia’s Comprehensive Plan and ordinances support context sensitive design in historic areas:
Design guidelines can be tailored to unique situations and to address the relationship between properties. We agree with the statement on p. 1-45, that infill and redevelopment around historic buildings is possible but must be done carefully. We are deeply concerned by the lack of specificity on p. 1-44 and 1-45, "Historic Building Issue." The Heritage Commission requests detailed information on the review process and implementation of the "special design guidelines" that will result in the creation of a successful downtown housing neighborhood adjacent to Percival Landing and Heritage Park. The fact that the proposed buildings will be built on liquefiable fill will - by economic necessity - affect building mass and scale. One can engineer for poor foundation conditions, but only bigger buildings are economically feasible. Again, the Heritage Commission requests an opportunity to evaluate the "special design guidelines" that will ensure compatibility with existing downtown streetscapes. VIEW PRESERVATION Olympia’s Comprehensive Plan HP 1.2 states, "Views of Mt. Rainier, the Olympic Mountains, the Black Hills, Budd Inlet, the Capitol Building, Capitol Lake and its surrounding hillsides strongly influence the scenic qualities of the city. They are also important to the historic character of the community in enhancing the area as a center for tourism and recreation. Outstanding views of these features must be protected." We are concerned with the lack of compatibility with Wilder and White’s original plan for the Capitol that strove to preserve views to and from the Capitol. The Capitol campus was designed so that the Capitol could be easily seen from anywhere in town. They envisioned an unimpeded view from the Temple of Justice to the water. The proposed zoning change would break up that expanse and view to the detriment of the capitol plan and the current Heritage Park plan. These buildings would also create a substantial view impediment for people at the street level in the proposed area, whether looking north toward the Olympic Mountains or south toward the capitol dome. Other communities have established height overlay districts to protect the visual and physical prominence of features considered to be important to the city. Port Townsend, for example, has design review guidelines that state (1) Designs should acknowledge the role of the shoreline and the bluff as the traditional determinants of the form of the city’s development by preserving and continuing the linear organization of the city between the shoreline and the bluff, (2) Designs should assist the redirection of the city’s focus to the waterfront by enhancing public access to the waterfront, creating public open spaces oriented to the waterfront, and encouraging waterfront uses and activities which are consistent with the carrying capacity of the aquatic environment…Designs shall protect views of the water… Building heights exceeding four stories along the waterfront will compromise views of the Capitol Campus and other scenic vistas. The Capitol Campus, Capitol Lake, and Heritage Park belong to the people of the State of Washington. The Heritage Commission believes that Washington’s State Capitol deserves at least as much respect as Port Townsend’s bluff. On p. 1-39, in the section "Design Guidelines," one of the changes between "Current Regulations" and "Draft Proposed" is "Downtown Design Guidelines — Clarify expectations for view corridors where waterfront public access exists (that these view corridors will be along public rights of way)." By what public process and under what circumstances will this clarification occur? INFILL PLANNING We agree that growth can - and must - be used as a tool to reshape our community. We understand that the continued commercial viability and a broader spectrum of housing options are critical to preserve and maintain the historic integrity and charm of our community. Members of the Heritage Commission believe that a combination of historic building rehabilitation and smart growth can be used together to revitalize our downtown. Context sensitive design is crucial for public acceptance of infill redevelopment projects. A number of communities develop and use design guidelines (1) to clarify what aspects of the community’s existing character are valued by the community and what are the community’s expectations for new development, (2) to ensure that new development complements rather than disrupts existing neighborhood character, (3) to ensure that new development is well connected to the larger neighborhood through continuous streets and sidewalk patterns and other visual and functional linkages, and (4) to raise the general quality of development. (Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington. Infill Development Strategies for Shaping Livable Neighborhoods. 1997. Report 38.) MRSC Report 38 continues, "A comprehensive set of design guidelines will seek to relate new development to the surrounding context at several levels. Guidelines for infill are typically concerned with the relationship between the new development and its immediate neighbors…to be effective, design guidelines should be concerned with how new building(s) fit with patterns established along the block (such as typical setback or streetscape). They should also be concerned with the broader context of neighborhood character, especially if within a historic district, waterfront district or district with some special function (emphasis added). Surveys of existing structures, block patterns and district character are recommended to document the existing context. The guidelines will be better supported by community residents to the extent that community residents are involved in developing guidelines, and the guidelines express what qualities are most valued by the community" (p. 56). We are concerned that the proposed six- to seven-story retail/market-rate housing complex will take its design inspirations from the nine story Capitol Center Building rather than from the scale and design influences found in the larger downtown core, where the average building height is at most three to four stories. Uniform Development Code Chapter 18.26 addresses the protection of the City's historical and cultural heritage for present and future generations, including properties that have yielded or are likely to yield archaeological information important in pre-history or history. The City needs to be aware that the blocks under consideration may hold archaeological deposits. There are dozens of identified pre-contact cultural resource sites in and near Olympia, scattered along the shorelines of Eld Inlet, Budd Inlet, and Henderson Inlet. There is some probability that Native American artifacts may be found in the course of excavation. This area was later the site of Little Hollywood; there is a strong possibility that archaeological artifacts from that era may also be found in this location. We understand that the engineering requirements for constructing on fill and the economic realities of market profitability necessitate large-scale construction encompassing full blocks. We know that buildings of the height proposed will require substantial pilings to meet code. We believe that this work and related excavation will damage or destroy the archaeological remains to be discovered here. The suggested proposal does not address mitigation for this issue. In addition, the mass and scale compatibility issues with the historic district remain unaddressed. We are concerned that the proposed buildings create a canyon of development surrounding Percival Landing, Fountain Park and Heritage Park. This isolates these new buildings from a smooth connection and contextual reference with the downtown business center. The proposed redevelopment also sacrifices _____ buildings currently listed on the Historic Register. _____ additional properties listed on the Historic Inventory would also be adversely impacted. Should only a few of these structures be saved, the infill design compatibility and market feasibility issues become critical. Further, this proposed amendment provides for no long-term development plan, mitigation alternatives, or larger contextual references for compatible development in the greater downtown core. When Olympia’s Comprehensive Plan was drafted in 1994, there was extensive opportunity for public input. We are concerned that the proposed amendment was drafted without comparable public process. Also, we have no way of knowing how this proposed development ties in with the larger vision for downtown redevelopment and revitalization. The Olympia Heritage Commission wants to see:
|