Steering Committee meeting #2 meeting notes, Feb 2 2011 (2).pdfCommittee
SteerIng
Fc,b vua1y 1� M011
The following is a compilation of the Steering Committee's responses/comments to the materials
presented at meeting #2. The intent of the meeting was for the consultant team to glean design
preferences and additional site layout characteristics from the steering committee. Based on the
committee's comments, the consultant team will refine the schemes and images and bring them back to
the committee for final approval before sharing them with the Public.
Cominents 1,0 Meeting #1 Mintites include:
The minutes from the first meeting were presented for final review by the committee. The following
comments were made:
DESIGN:
Appearance
• The design of the complex should be of high quality with long lasting materials.
® The SR -104 frontage should be attractive, inviting and reveal what's inside the complex.
• The thematic design should resemble more of a village than an urban downtown.
® The site edges front on the public realm (SR -104 and Dayton Ave.) and needs to be
inviting to the passing public and pedestrian friendly.
Circulation/Pedestrian Orientation
• The 104/Dayton intersection should be a pedestrian gateway through the site
• The SR -104 frontage should be improved with safer sidewalks off -set from the curb and
consideration of a roundabout at the SR -104 yntrnce to the site
4,, .1 1
® The internal walkway should be connected to atrailA.hnp.zeed:s7ron�:,bxsh.
• Urban design improvements to the SR-104/Dayton Ave. intersection would provide
connections to Downtown
Architectural Character
• The design should reflect a Northwest style and not be ultra modern.
® Buildings should be architectural statements that density can be acceptable to the
community if well-designed.
® A variety of heights and styles with subdued colors and long lasting materials should be
incorporated into the final plan.
Harbor Square Redevelopment
Steering Committee Mtg #2 Minutes
USES:
Project Features
® Create a pedestrian focus with a village green/plaza in the center of the site that is
viewable and accessible.
• Residential uses should dominate the south side of the site adjacent to the marsh but
also above non-residential uses on Dayton.
® Include a parking structure adjacent to the RR tracks to serve as a sound barrier to the
balance of the project.
• The retail on Dayton Ave should be pedestrian oriented and while maintaining the
current location of the hotel and possibly the athletic club.
General
® Create a mix of uses (reside tial, retail, office and public gathering places) that will
provide optimal tax revenueo the City and Port
• The predominate use shou(d be multi -storied residential with connections to
Downtown, the waterfront and transit.
® Ground floor retail uses shold be primarily convenience oriented and complementary to
the Downtown.„y ,A h1'�
® The residential mix should include a diversity of housing types including senior housing
® The office mix could include a small to medium anchor as a site employer
® The public mix should include uses that benefit the residents and users of the site.
® An economic feasibility study should be conducted to test the final plan against the
current market.
CONNECTIONS:
Offsite
• Create pedestrian routes and connections to the city bike and pedestrian routes.
• Include attractive uses (eating and drinking) on the site edges to bring people into the
site.
® Any pedestrian overpass over the RR tracks should benefit the entire community.
® Ensure that there are strong connections to the waterfront and downtown
Onsite
® Streetscapes should be pedestrian oriented and designed with LID (green) elements.
® Ensure visual connections to the marsh
® On-site design principles should be able to be linked to adjacent developments.
Harbor Square Redevelopment
Steering Committee Mtg #2 Minutes 2
Bullet #3 — Will be reworded, to "Make the project look good from SR 104."
Visual Preferencing
Twelve visual preference surveys were returned for compilation, see attachment. The purpose of the
activity was to align images with the steering committees desires for successfully redeveloping Harbor
Square. Repeated comments (in no particular order) with the highest rankings include:
A NW traditional style with a stone base, timber/wood materials, and
glass.
Modulation of the building face at the street level (create the feel of
multiple buildings), upper floor step backs, and pitched roofs are
preferred over flat roofs
Varying roof heights is important to the overall design.
An activ4twed sidewalk/pedestrian area is preferred with retail spaces
that open onto the sidewalk.
Small scale pedestrian spaces integrated between the development and
the streetscape.
Informal, curvilinear green space (maybe similar to Bracketts Landing
Park) that relates to and compliments the adjacent uses is a preferred
design feature.
Harbor Square Redevelopment
Steering Committee Mtg 92 Minutes 3
Cu/b|eastreets would work well tocreate apedestrian focused area
and multi functional spaces not just for cars; planted medians isa
preferred method toadd green without taking away for pedestrian
space onthe sidewalk.
One way / narrow streets provide a nice character/scale.
Good separation between the street and residential and/or retail. A
nice residential feel for Harbor Square.
Sche,ine Review Comments
Two redevelopment schemes were presented tothe group. The group was then split into three sub
groups ioreview the schemes. Comments from each group were captured under three categories
including General, Scheme 1and Scheme 2and summarized below.
�
Need to do solar analysis to ensure the plans are taking advantage of the southern exposure and
"oo|d"spots are limited.
Harbor Square Redevelopment
a ,
Step back uppers ies of buildings on Dayton to avoid a "canyon"' affect.
Consider trading/building height of Dayton Ave. buildings with the residential buildings next to
the Marsh. (IE; Residential buildings next to the marsh could go' i6 stories if the Dayton Ave.
buildings were reduced to 3 or 4 stories.
® Upper story of Dayton Ave. buildings could be designed with only 4 or 5 units at the maximum
heights and stepped back. (castle effect)
® Dayton Ave. building mass should be broken up more so that it is not a continuous wall along
the street -front.
G r°oup 2 -)Io hii
0 Install a left hand turn lane off of SR 104 into the site. (but the state will not let it happen. On
the other hand, except for when the ferry traffic is leaving, there is no problem.)
® Show the roads/parking around the hotel that will remain.
0 Both schemes show too much office.
• Step backs and modulation are required along Dayton.
® Sycamore trees are messing up the sidewalk along Dayton
® There should be modifications to SR 104 shown in the schemes that will slow traffic and include
a left hand turn lane into the site off of SR 104.
® Update the site around the hotel to reflect actual conditions.
• Modulation and stepbacks are critical to a successful plan, especially along Dayton Ave. The
fagade should look like a series of different buildings along the street. The maximum number of
stories at the corner of Dayton and SR 104 should be three.
® Ground floor residential is a good idea especially along the interior edges.
® The central open space should have a "festival" feeling to it.
® Retail located in the center of the development will most likely not be successful. Also, skeptical
of the retail on the SR 104 corner building ground floor. Do not see this development as a retail
destination.
0 Interested in ways to create flexible ground floor space that could be either residential or
commercial.
• The south end of the site with southern solar exposure could be a good location for restaurants,
cafes, etc. also a good way to bring people through the site and could create a good nighttime
environment which currently does not exist in the downtown. Recognizing the need to respect
the proximity to the marsh and the requirement to limit noise impacts.
• Improvements that will slow down traffic on SR 104 are desired.
® Housing needs to be a mix of low to high income levels. A focus on high-end housing is not
desirable.
® Small 1,000 SF retail spaces are desired over larger spaces because they provide more variety,
more activity, and leasing flexibility. If one tenant goes away there isn't as big of an impact if
one large tenant space is vacant.
Harbor Square Redevelopment
Steering Committee Mtg #2 Minutes 5
® A loop course that could function as a running track while respecting the marsh would work well
with the Athletic Club and generate activity.
® The development's configuration should reflect the marsh configuration.
® The layout and building designs should focus on getting sunlight into the site.
'eclatat ,,na('I
Gvoup 14fill
® Internal access street is too irregular
• Lack of a defined public space.
Gpl"oIIlp 2-IIoIIIi
® Too much office — but there is a niche for Class A office space in Edmonds.
• There should be a focal point at 104/Dayton.
• Step back the upper stories on the taller building at 104/Dayton.
® Modulation is really needed on the larger buildings.
• Event space for weddings etc. could go on top of the garage. It would have great views.
m Dayton fagade is really deadly. Need to modulate.
• The distance between the parking and the athletic club that remains could be problematic.
• It is unclear where all the athletic club is, part remains but the tennis courts seem to go away
® The size of the parking structure next to the RR could be increased (additional stories) for
increased utilization, maybe to support an offsite use.
s t,h tp. t`n
• General preference that Scheme #2 is more appropriate. Interior street layout is better and
more conducive to some of the more highly preferred images during the VP survey.
® Parking garage next to RR tracks is a good idea. May want to consider having one or two stories
of athletic facilities over 3 stories of parking.
® Consider breaking up larger building mass to bring more sunlight into the interior of the site.
• Design pedestrian friendly street/side walk improvements to SR -104 so it is integrated with the
on-site and off-site pedestrian circulation patterns (IE: connected with the marsh trail,
Dayton and waterfront).
• A traffic calming improvement (roundabout) on SR -104 and site entrance should be explored
with WSDOT and City.
® Need to better define public spaces with next iteration of the plan.
• Consider removing retail spaces along "center green" as they will be difficult to lease. Instead,
consider ground floor residential accessed by a "woonerf" that terminates near the Dayton/104
intersection.
Harbor Square Redevelopment
Steering Committee Mtg #2 Minutes 6
* General preference for Scheme 2.
�
Better residential /OfDcp/Parkingbalance.
� The "open"feeling ispreferred.
*
Make sure that itissunny enough. Not too much shade from tall buildings and too narrow open
space.
* EntryneedstobeinvitinQ—perhapsanenirancestructure?
* Wider sidewalk on Dayton
* Step back upper stories along Dayton.
* More modulation
I "mmm1) 3 -Ste f
* Group preferred Scheme Zover 1.
* The shape of the Athletic Club as will not accommodate the eight tennis courts that are desired.
Jack Tawney will work with the design team to establish a configuration (including height
clearances) that will accommodate the tennis courts.
m The circulation through the site could end up functioning (negatively) as a "cut -through" for cars
traveling from Dayton to 5R 104 eastbound. This will need to be prevented through design.
Harbor Square Redevelopment
Steering Committee Meeting #2
February 1, 2010
I
VISUAL PREFI[`IRENC[., SLJRV[,",,,Y
In order to better understand the types of streetscape, activities, open space, and architectural
character appropriate for Harbor Square Redevelopment, participants were asked to participate
in a visual preference survey, with pictures showing various housing types, commercial
developments, mixed-use buildings, streetscapes, and open spaces.
Each photo was evaluated per the following scoring system:
4 = Fantastic example
3 = Good example
2 = Neutral - not sure
1 = Undesirable (could be better)
0 = Unacceptable
1. Mixed-use — pitched roof,
bldg face modulation
Average
Score Comments
W
® Uniformly too close to sidewalks.
® Not enough diversity in heights.
MAKERS architecture and urban design
Visual Preference Survey Comment Sheet 8
Steering_Committee_Meeting_2_Minutes-w.docx - 2/21/11
2. Mixedueo—Shonebaee.
timber structure, and
metal roof
3. Mixed-use —formal
limited modulation
4. yWixed'use—pduhedrnof
oornarab*pbaoko
UP
im
we
w Too ponderous; too mounbain-|odgey.
m Too heavy.
* Too uho|et-|ooking.
pToo grand.
* Too urban.
° Too urban; too blocky.
• Too massive.
° Good landscaping.
w Still too massive. Too close hosidewalks. Covered
walkways are good.
• Columns too heavy. (2)
5. Mix -use — variety with @ Too flat.
color @ No modulation. Colors are nice.
a Colors are good.
9 Like the lightness. Sidewalks too narrow. Fagade
too uniform and curtain -like. Flat roofs?
1.3 e LEGO look.
MAKERS architecture and urban design
Visual Pfe nce Survey Comment Sheet 9
6. Residential — flat roof,
7. ReoidonUe|—pitohed
roof, wood siding
8. Renk]onUa|—pituhed
roof, NW traditional
0. Rebai|—vi|lagegraen
Average
Score I Comments
AIR
2.1
wToo uniform and sedate for HS.
• Gross; not user friendly.
* Tired of these. Think they will look bad in a decade
or so.
° Too much NW.
• Too busy.
11"
° Pop onto stone.
* Too much stuff.
° Nice, but not for HS.
• More curves/sinuous.
MAKERS architecture and urban design
Visual Pfe Survey Comment Sht 10
xw",/"gC"mm/uee_w°mmo_z/wm"*^°m,cx2m1n1
MAKERS architecture and urban design
Visual PrefeSurvey Comment Sht 11
Average
Image
Score,__
Comments
10. Retail — NW traditional
e Okay.
@ Good public space
1.7
11. Retail — Traditional stone
9 Contemporary.
e Like the setback of third story.
9 Up good; down no.
e Too massive.
2.2
e Would work on Dayton.
@ Setback at upper stories good.
e Good setback of upper stories; modulate second
0 Setback good.
12. Retail — NW traditional
9 Open/glass/stone/wood.
e Like the glass and wood.
e Okay for public space/gateway. Good stone/wood
mix. Contemporary.
2.6
a Expensive; just 4 statement!
o Alderbrook (apparently good; voted 'A").
7
o Too full of itself.
o Interesting.
e NW look.
13. Retail — integrated
o Seems it might fit space and needs.
outdoor spaces
o Nice paving.
1.4
MAKERS architecture and urban design
Visual PrefeSurvey Comment Sht 11
14. Retail —activated
sidewalk
Comments
° Recessed entry.
pOutside uoeofrehaii Space outside iogood.
m Good modulation, street activity.
• Exterior activity; sidewalks.
15. Retail — active corners
e Looks inactive/nothing outside/empty.
e Too much sidewalk.
@ Hardscape is good for outside use in winter. Good.
9 Natural or pavers sidewalk.
2.1
e Doesn't invite.
9 Needs better walks.
16. Retail — small scale
9 More rustic.
* Needs more color. Needs more diversity on
building second floor.
@ Needs better color.
2.5
9 Good in/out modulation. Ground floor is great.
e Raised flower beds not good.
17. Retail — pedestrian focus
e Public space is OK
2.7
MAKERS architecture and urban design
Visual Pter nce Survey Comment Sht 12
18. Pedestrian corridor
Average
w Okay for residential areas.
m Noseating; narrow.
w Needs more curves. Setback ofsecond and third
floors.
��
~_.= p Too narrow. (2)
w Too narrow; "hunneUy."
• Needs modulation.
19. Formal cireen space
@ Not appropriate for HS, and maintenanceM
0 Not on this site.
9 Not on HS.
9 No SW garden; too formal.
1121
1.4
o Too busy; not user friendly.
e Too formal.
20. Retail plaza
e Not appropriate for HS, and maintenance!!! Too
o Good parking and arch and awning.
o Like the brick/texture.
2.7
o Awnings, arch entry.
9 Entrance is good.
21. Retail plaza
9 Like the common area.
• Good common seating area.
• Like the open space/tables.
3.0
MAKERS architecture and urban design
Visual Pfe nce Survey Comment Sheet 13
MAKERS architecture and urban design
Visual Preference Survey Comment Sheet 14
Steering_Committee_ Meeting_2_Minules-w.docx - 2/21/11
Average
Image
Score
Comments
22. Water play feature
e I like this but doubt we have the space.
m
e No.
e Too big, but nice feature.
e Too big in scale.
y�
2.3
e Good, but too large.
-lt
e Smaller, more natural.
TT 1
23. Green space
e Landscaping.
e Nice landscaping. Could be a bioswale.
s.,�rt t1, ��,
e Good; curved; mixed shops.
�`
3.2
e Large common area is good.
e Good landscaping.
"i'-ilmi
e Too vacant. Wall of residential too much.
24. Green space
e Informal landscaping.
e Like the curves/flower beds. Like one-way. Have
in own yard/garden.
e Informality is good.
2 .
e Good. Could allow residents to have flower
�
gardens.
i
® Too high.
e Good landscaping; curving.
e Good landscaping. Social spaces need.
e Okay for residential paths.
25. Green ped corridor
e Entrance.
....., . . w. m,.. ,..,r.�„
e Poor landscaping. No attention draw.
e Needs "draw" item inside plaza.
e Needs a center.
1
2.1
a Large trees are not good.
n
e Okay for residential paths.
MAKERS architecture and urban design
Visual Preference Survey Comment Sheet 14
Steering_Committee_ Meeting_2_Minules-w.docx - 2/21/11
Average
Image I Score I Comments
26. Small gathering space
27. Curb bu|bn&on-street
parking
* Seems appropriate for Edmonds.
w Good; social.
* Great for open plaza.
* Lots ofseating.
��� \
~'" | » Small meeting places are good.
m Noparking meters.
• Lack ofvegetation; very straight.
* Sidewalk scoring ioOK
28. Wide sidewalks w/
9 Low -impact development.
amenities, limited on
9 Like sidewalk size.
street parking
e Trees and rain gardens. Could be porous surface.
0 ITID potential exists. Trees down the middle divider
is a good idea. Too many colors in the idewalk.
2.5
e No vertical shrubs.
e Pavers are too busy; trees in boulevard; good
e Too much pattern.
a Too geometric; "no patterns."
29. Wide sidewalks on street
e No curbs; LID.
parking
a Festival parking; good separation.
9 Like no curb. Add rain gardens.
e Good street with no curb.
MIA
3.1
e Like the walk -off curbs.
@ No raised curb (apparently good; voted "Y).
e Flat sidewalk good.
MAKERS architecture and urban design
Visual Pfe Survey Comment Shi 15
MAKERS architecture and urban design
Visual Preference Survey Comment Sheet 16
Steering_Committee_Meeling_2_Minutes-w.docx - 2121111
Average
Image
Score
Comments
30. Planted medians
® Mercer Island.
p Like well- lanted median.
e Good.
e Center island trees are good.
cis
3.4
e Medians are good.
31. Heavy landscaping
9 No social.
® Sidewalks too narrow.
e Needs wider, more sinuous sidewalk.
e Moves people through.
2,6
A �'!Vy'M��p1bIIWN
32. Limited front yards at
+ Residence? Or retail?
sidewalk
® Good separation.
Like the colors.
a Residential.
3.5
33. Narrow street ROWs and
® Curved street is not good.
limited landscaping
® Street okay.
e Like the curve. Not enough greenery.
o Curve (apparently good; voted "4").
2.5
MAKERS architecture and urban design
Visual Preference Survey Comment Sheet 16
Steering_Committee_Meeling_2_Minutes-w.docx - 2121111
AuareQ*
Image I Score I Comments
34. Ped focus
35. Ped focus, limited ROW,
retail activated sidewalks
* Parking onoutside--no.
* Variation inbuilding heights.
• Lots of green; no curb; pavers.
• One-way streets.
• Lots of green gives a diverse look. Very eye-
catching. Like wide sidewalks. Add the curbless
street and bioswales/rain gardens.
3.5 9 Like one-way streets.
• One-way street; good, wide sidewalks.
e Theme?. Need a "landmark" building? Public Restrooms? Artwork?
� Stef Comments from 0y group iSthat NVVarchitecture theme iS(]Kbut individual building
design Sh0U|d be eclectic.
MAKERS architecture and urban design
Visual Pfe Survey Comment Sheet 17
35. Ped focus, limited ROW,
retail activated sidewalks
* Parking onoutside--no.
* Variation inbuilding heights.
• Lots of green; no curb; pavers.
• One-way streets.
• Lots of green gives a diverse look. Very eye-
catching. Like wide sidewalks. Add the curbless
street and bioswales/rain gardens.
3.5 9 Like one-way streets.
• One-way street; good, wide sidewalks.
e Theme?. Need a "landmark" building? Public Restrooms? Artwork?
� Stef Comments from 0y group iSthat NVVarchitecture theme iS(]Kbut individual building
design Sh0U|d be eclectic.
MAKERS architecture and urban design
Visual Pfe Survey Comment Sheet 17