If/When the City implements a reconstruction of Wing Point Way, it would be a unique opportunity to evaluate the feasibility during the planning phase to incorporate some/all of the following and the project could become a MODEL reconstruction:
1. Capitalize on the pedestrian aspects/potential of adjacent Hawley Cove Park (i.e. building a boardwalk/trail from the existing boardwalk to Hawley Avenue to enhance pedestrian safety to/from the ferry),
2. Take the opportunity to improve the two culverts that exist under Wing Point Way to benefit the park and shoreline habitat by enlarging the understreet pipe,
3. Design impervious surface drainage to minimize stormwater runoff (“streetscapes” technology employed for this project much like designs considered for the downtown street reconstruction),
4. Leverage the close vicinity of the sewer and investigate the feasibility of incorporating the purple pipe/recycle water technology. This may be an opportune time while the street is dug up!
5. Establish safe traffic flow solutions for the anticipated developments (Capstone’s application does not satisfactorily address the egress onto Wing Point Way).
6. Ensure non-motorized characteristics adequately meet the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians
These suggestions come from many of our neighbors. Any other suggestions or comments are very welcome!
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Squelched - Non-motorized element to Hawley Cove Park!
Excerpted from our neighborhood discussions -
This project got canned by park district staff because "someone" doesn't like the idea. There was strong support for the idea at the Wing Pt Non Motorized meeting in Sept 2005 but even the $7500 that the Non-Motorized Committee allocated for planning in 2007 got canned by staff a few months ago. They told me they "didn't like the idea" or "see the need for it", and then lamely they said they "didn't understand it". Everyone I've spoken with who understands the idea thinks it's great, I'm surprised there is resistance at all but there is. I don't know where the resistance lies.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Capstone Partners Continues to Get Special Treatment!
Capstone Partners Continues to Get Special Treatment!
We have just been informed Don Audleman of Capstone Partners has been appointed to the City's Winslow Tomorrow Streetscapes Advisory Committee...you can check this out at
http://www.winslowwaystreetscape.com/WinslowWayStreetscape/Advisory%20Group.html
We have just been informed Don Audleman of Capstone Partners has been appointed to the City's Winslow Tomorrow Streetscapes Advisory Committee...you can check this out at
http://www.winslowwaystreetscape.com/WinslowWayStreetscape/Advisory%20Group.html
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Concerned Neighbors Denied Due Process!
Our Wing Point Neighborhood has been Denied Due Process!
The Mayor has made a land use decision directly impacting citizens and the character of the neighborhood without public participation!
Is this what our Island community and other neighborhoods should expect from our City Leader on land use decisions?
The land use in question involves the property owned by Wing Point Country Club. The property runs along Hawley Creek which feeds the wetlands in our island’s Wing Point 13-acre shoreline park, recently named Hawley Cove Park. The developer, Capstone Partners, has agreed to buy the property from Wing Point Country Club if their conditional use permit is approved to build 11 “patio” homes.
Significant Events to Date:
July 21, 2006 - The Hearing Examiner DENIED the 11 “patio” home application (finding the property too small for the development and out of character for the neighborhood.)
August 8, 2006 - Capstone/Wing Point CC appealed the Hearing Examiner’s decision to Superior Court.
June 24, 2007 - The Mayor granted a $25K no-bid contract to Capstone for a downtown garage study, which is part of the Winslow Tomorrow Plan.
July 13, 2007 - The Mayor directed the City Attorney to sign a stipulation with Capstone to remand the application back to the Hearing Examiner, who had already denied the application twice.
Questions for the Mayor:
Aren’t land use decisions on denied applications made only by the Superior Court or City Council? Why were the laws regarding remand procedures bypassed?
Why is Capstone allowed to introduce new evidence and new characteristics into the remand hearing when this is not ordinarily allowed? Isn’t this effectively a new Conditional Use Permit? If Capstone applied for a new CUP, wouldn’t they have to comply with the new and stricter Critical Areas Ordinance, which protects the stream/wetlands/shoreline to a greater extent?
Doesn’t the signing of this agreement give Capstone advantages they would not have if they followed due process (namely, Superior Court, or applying for a new application under stricter CAO rules)?
Did you consider the appearance of fairness when you signed the questionable out-of-court agreement with Capstone after granting a no-bid contract to Capstone, especially since both events bypass public participation?
(To read the law on remand procedures go to http://www.mrsc.org/nxt/gateway.dll/bnbgmc?f=templates&fn=bnbgpage.htm$vid=municodes:BainbridgeIsland)
If you want answers to these questions, or have opinions you can CONTACT your City Leader(s), and/or write to your favorite paper/editor(s), and of course show up for the next hearing!:
Darlene Kordonoy, Mayor
Mayor@ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us / 842-2545
Your City Council
Council@ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us
The Contract Attorney who advised the City on this matter – Jay P. Derr
jderr@GordonDerr.com / 206-382-9540
Bainbridge Review Editor – Douglas Crist
editor@bainbridgereview.com / 842-6613
The Sun Editor – Scott Ware
http://www.kitsapsun.com/forms/letters/ (360) 792-9202
The Bainbridge Islander reporter – Rachel A. Pritchett
rpritchett@kitsapsun.com / 842-4018
The Seattle Times Local News – Suki Dardarian, Managing Editor
newstips@seattletimes.com / (206) 464-2791
The Mayor has made a land use decision directly impacting citizens and the character of the neighborhood without public participation!
Is this what our Island community and other neighborhoods should expect from our City Leader on land use decisions?
The land use in question involves the property owned by Wing Point Country Club. The property runs along Hawley Creek which feeds the wetlands in our island’s Wing Point 13-acre shoreline park, recently named Hawley Cove Park. The developer, Capstone Partners, has agreed to buy the property from Wing Point Country Club if their conditional use permit is approved to build 11 “patio” homes.
Significant Events to Date:
July 21, 2006 - The Hearing Examiner DENIED the 11 “patio” home application (finding the property too small for the development and out of character for the neighborhood.)
August 8, 2006 - Capstone/Wing Point CC appealed the Hearing Examiner’s decision to Superior Court.
June 24, 2007 - The Mayor granted a $25K no-bid contract to Capstone for a downtown garage study, which is part of the Winslow Tomorrow Plan.
July 13, 2007 - The Mayor directed the City Attorney to sign a stipulation with Capstone to remand the application back to the Hearing Examiner, who had already denied the application twice.
Questions for the Mayor:
Aren’t land use decisions on denied applications made only by the Superior Court or City Council? Why were the laws regarding remand procedures bypassed?
Why is Capstone allowed to introduce new evidence and new characteristics into the remand hearing when this is not ordinarily allowed? Isn’t this effectively a new Conditional Use Permit? If Capstone applied for a new CUP, wouldn’t they have to comply with the new and stricter Critical Areas Ordinance, which protects the stream/wetlands/shoreline to a greater extent?
Doesn’t the signing of this agreement give Capstone advantages they would not have if they followed due process (namely, Superior Court, or applying for a new application under stricter CAO rules)?
Did you consider the appearance of fairness when you signed the questionable out-of-court agreement with Capstone after granting a no-bid contract to Capstone, especially since both events bypass public participation?
(To read the law on remand procedures go to http://www.mrsc.org/nxt/gateway.dll/bnbgmc?f=templates&fn=bnbgpage.htm$vid=municodes:BainbridgeIsland)
If you want answers to these questions, or have opinions you can CONTACT your City Leader(s), and/or write to your favorite paper/editor(s), and of course show up for the next hearing!:
Darlene Kordonoy, Mayor
Mayor@ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us / 842-2545
Your City Council
Council@ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us
The Contract Attorney who advised the City on this matter – Jay P. Derr
jderr@GordonDerr.com / 206-382-9540
Bainbridge Review Editor – Douglas Crist
editor@bainbridgereview.com / 842-6613
The Sun Editor – Scott Ware
http://www.kitsapsun.com/forms/letters/ (360) 792-9202
The Bainbridge Islander reporter – Rachel A. Pritchett
rpritchett@kitsapsun.com / 842-4018
The Seattle Times Local News – Suki Dardarian, Managing Editor
newstips@seattletimes.com / (206) 464-2791
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
