design charrette council presentation

• Introductions• Project Status• Design Charrette Overview– Participant Selection– Results

• Next Steps

Thursday, July 12, 2012Council Workshop – Clean Water Facility

Design Charrette Presentation

CLEAN WATER FACILITY

Design Charrette Masterplan Concepts


Design Charrette Masterplan ConceptsParticipants, (Non City / Consultants)

• David Acton, Ratepayer

• Corky Bridgeford, Property Owner

• Mike Horrobin, Property Owner

• Gray Giordan, Waterside Condos

• Joanne & Russ Hartley, Property Owners

• John Koetje, Ratepayer

• Robyn Kolaitis, Ratepayer

• Jill Johnson, Chamber of Commerce

• Bruce Neil, Planning Commission

• Sean Rafferty, Ratepayer

• Daisy Sapida, Parks Board

• Dale Smith, Whidbey Island Bank

• Jeff Trumbore, Ratepayer

• Ken Tyler, North Whidbey Little League



Agenda1. Goals for the Masterplan Charrette:

2. History of the process so far

3. Environmental

4. Infrastructure

5. Transportation

6. Land Use

7. Financial

8. Political / Social

9. Examples of other Facilities

10. How is this site best developed?

11. Political and Regulatory

12. Final thoughts & summary conclusion in relation to:• Technical, • Financial, • Social and • Environmental aspects.

CLEAN WATER FACILITYDesign Charrette Masterplan Concepts

Day One: Windjammer Site


Day Two: Crescent Harbor North Site


Windjammer Site Concept



Positive Issues• Existing Utilities at site saves on new infrastructure

costs.• The entire shoreline area could remain open and

add to the usable area.• RV area can remain in place, and enhanced with

services in a new Facility.• Open green space is maintained near Waterside

Condos.• New restrooms, community room, educational &

cultural areas accessible to Park.• New facility could help facilitate a Bayshore Drive

connection.• A new Bayshore Drive connection would add value

to existing commercial parcels.• Bayshore realignment would add commercial land at

the Bayshore / City Beach Rd. and a better pedestrian connection to Park from old town area

• A new Bayshore Drive could add additional on-street parking accessible to Park.

• Provides pedestrian view corridor into Park site from Pioneer Way.

• Provides opportunity for smaller scale commercial on Pioneer Way in a depressed, an existing under-used commercial area.

• Could provide a “Wow” Architectural structure as a Gateway to the Park.

• New Bayshore Drive connection could help solve flooding issues at west end.

• The location could provide services for a future amphitheatre area.

• All the potential ancillary improvements could be phased in, without affecting usability of the chosen MBR site location.

• A smaller footprint MBR facility will have improved water quality beyond current requirements into the future.

• Site area is designed for anticipation of a 50-year growth need.

• No separate Pump Station would be required. (Integrated in new facility)

• Some of the chosen MBR site is city-owned property.

• This location allows the project to leverage other needed improvements at Park.



Negative Issues

• Probable archeological finds will affect costs and schedule.

• Iconic architecture will cost approximately 5% more.

• Community rooms, restrooms, etc. will add to the expense.

• MBR facility costs more than an AS facility, but less of a “footprint” (2.5 - 3 acres).

• Chosen site requires acquisition of some commercial private property and a zone change on any city-owned land.

• New Bayshore Drive connection is an additional expense, if chosen.

• Reconfiguration, or relocation of little League fields required if Bayshore Dr. built.


Crescent Harbor North Site Concept


Crescent Harbor North

Positive Issues

• Land is mostly undeveloped, except for some residences.

• Approximately 6-24 acres would have to be acquired at existing market values.

• Large site area allows for expansion of other City uses, besides a treatment facility.

• Site allows for construction of an AS type facility, which is less costly, but needs, a larger “footprint” (6 acres) and can be phased-in easier over time.

• Building architecture can be more economical, if hidden from view with buffers.

• Opportunity for some educational facilities to access trails down to wetland habitat areas.

• Topography potentially assists gravity-assist AS systems.

• Potential for some commercial use parcels fronting on Regatta Road once utilities are in place with a new facility.

• Large site allows maximum flexibility for the future


Crescent Harbor North

Negative Issues• All effluent/ waste water would have to be pumped from the exist. WJ site, up to this

site, and back down to WJ site again, after treatment. This requires new utility piping expense and pump stations.

• Topography will require additional expense for several retaining wall systems to create flat areas for development and internal roads.

• Stormwater control expense will be required on west side of site along Regatta and/or Torpedo Roads.

• Decommissioning Torpedo Road, will require additional expense for improvements to Regatta and Crescent Harbor Roads, including curb/gutter sidewalk at frontage and possible new roundabout to access Navy Base entrance.

• Critical areas on site at easterly end will require delineation and adequate buffers.

• If more land is utilized for other uses (i.e. Solid waste, etc.), a smaller footprint MBR facility will cost more than an AS system.

• A Pump Station structure will be required at Windjammer site.

• Site will have to go through a City Annexation process, and Land use Zone change.


Blaine Master Plan Design Charrette Example



“…the right thing to do for the entire Community…”

Next Steps…

Tuesday, July 31st – Public Meeting5:30 – 6:30pm: Public Open House6:30 – 8:30pm: Council WorkshopLocation: Elks Lodge, 155 NE Ernst Street

Tuesday, August 14th – Special Council Meeting6:00 pmLocation: City Hall

design charrette council presentation

Technology

masterplan charrette

park site

chosen site

site best

large site area

value site area

chosen mbr site

improved new facility