Steering Committee meeting #3 meeting notes, April 4 2011 (2).pdfRECEPIeF
JUL 10 2012
EVELOPMENT 8ERV10E',
Harbor Square Redevelopment r I,JWJFR
Steering Committee Mtg #3 — April 4, 2011
The following summarizes the committee's comments to the schemes and sketches and view analysis
images presented at meeting #3.
Scheme Plan
• The amount of office space in the mix is questioned. There is a significantly less in Scheme 02 than
what is currently there. Previous direction was to reduce the amount of office space. Direction
from the Port is needed on the "correct" mix of uses or if the consultant team needs to follow up
with additional information that supports less office.
Before we propose moving the athletic club we need to make sure it's feasible. There are currently
eight courts; the 6,500 members might expect to see at least that same number in a new facility.
Also, a parking garage is expensive, estimates range from $24K to $30K per space. The move is
proposed since the Athletic club currently occupies the portion of the site that is best suited for
residential. The club could also function as a good buffer to the rail road track noise. If the athletic
club doesn't move, we're basically back to Scheme 1 with the elimination/modification of the
buildings while maintaining the Scheme 2 internal street alignment. Yuk! What if we look at a
notation on the Scheme 2 drawing that addresses a phasing plan for the athletic club. That is,
parking garage and Dayton Street buildings get built in phase 1 while the southern buildings and the
street system occur in later phases dependant on the relocation of the athletic building to the top of
the parking garage. Problem is that there needs to be enough revenue in the first phase to finance
the parking structure. The Dayton Street buildings may not produce enough (ie they have their own
parking structure) to finance a separate structure.
It's assumed that the estimated port/city revenue stream would occur later on in the process once
we have a preferred alternative which an economist could use to interpolate. The question that
arises is; does the port want the revenue picture now before we know what the preferred use mix
is?
• As a way to increase the public benefit of the project, the conversation about the civic/cultural
amenity was interpreted as a stand alone or portion of a building with a view tower. The building
could serve as a small community center -like facility for public events, interpretive learning about
the marsh and a great view of the marsh and the Sound. The public may be expecting something in
return for increasing the height. It's possible that the trade comes as a "viewing" opportunity for
the entire community. A point within the redevelopment where you can see into the Marsh, out to
the waterfront and the mountains could also be used for education, meetings, and gatherings, a
public/cultural focus that could possibly be funded separately from what is needed to make the
redevelopment work.
2, 0\/Iocfify `l kok fit s
• Add modulation to building along Dayton to reduce the size and make it look like multiple buildings.
Varying building heights might be a method of reducing the "mass"; color may also be a way to
reduce the perceived "mass". The building along Dayton as it is now illustrated looks too massive.
• Do something with the building at the corner to reduce the scale, maybe add the tiara back?
• Adding a building on the north side of Dayton with a maximum height of 35' (max. bldg height in the
zone district) with street trees may result in reducing the perceived height of our Dayton Street
buildings (55').
The connection with the marsh will need to minimize the impact to wildlife while maximizing the
feature. There are no examples in the Puget Sound area of a similar opportunity to what the
Edmonds marsh provides. Show an idea to what the redevelopment could look like from the marsh
end with a view tower or other concept.
• The front pedestrian plaza at the corner of SR104 and Dayton is a good idea, but, in reality,the traffic
noise in this area would make use of the area uncomfortable. A gathering place closer to the
interior may be a better option.
• A vertical element or arch over the pedestrian entrance could be helpful. It could be that a small
building on the side next to SR104 that would help create a buffer as well as the "gateway".
D. Aflow Sh(,d /Walysil;
• Three images have been developed for "public" views. Request was made to show potential view
impacts from residents across from the development that look down on Harbor Square, from
stations 32, 33, and 36.
• Do not show the building mass models; remove them from the analysis report. ???
• The first floor height is 15', this is important so that the space can be used by a variety of retail uses.
• The south end entrance was discussed as a SR 104 gateway to the site with a connection to the
hotel parking lot and elimination of the existing right-in/right-out access to the hotel. Thus, there
would be one grand entrance feature off of SR 104.
• We may need to show views to the backside of the marsh and from the residences that overlook the
site and quantify how many residents experience these views.
• We need to clarify that there will be a housing mix from low to high costs on the site.
• This is a 20+ year plan; it should be emphasized that it won't all happen at once.
F