Loading...
2021-09-22 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom September 22, 2021 Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Chair Alicia Crank, Vice Chair Judi Gladstone Roger Pence Todd Cloutier Nathan Monroe BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Matt Cheung (Excused) Richard Kuen Mr. Rosen: Calls meeting to order STAFF PRESENT Eric Engmann, Planning Division Angie Fesler, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Frances Chapin, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Mr. Monroe: Reads Land Acknowledgement Mr. Rosen: Before roll call, asks Nathan to share news. Mr. Monroe: States he will be resigning from the Board effective in the middle of October due to many reasons including a new baby, promotion at work with Sound Transit, and other time commitments. Thanks the Board for all their hard work Mr. Rosen: Thanks Nathan and says he will be missed. Mr. Rosen: Asks Eric to call roll. Mr. Engmann: Calls Roll, all present except Matt Chung or Richard Kuen. Mr. Rosen: States Matt Chung is excused. And at this point, Richard is not. Approval of Minutes Mr. Rosen: We have two sets of minutes to approve. The first is August 25th. I will just point out that on Packet Page 6, Judi lost her J. Ms. Crank: So, Packet Page 23, there's a word missing. In my first statement on that page, it should say — the word "not" should be between body and to. And if you read the rest of the comment, you'll see that that's accurate that it would read to the fact that "not" should be there. Mr. Rosen: Any other changes to August 25th meeting? Asks for a motion. (moved and seconded). Asks for those in favor. Multiple: Aye. Mr. Rosen: Anybody opposed? Ms. Gladstone: I oppose. I really have an issue with the meeting notes. When I looked at our packet and we had a one -hour meeting and 37 pages of notes. The RS Commission has a two-hour meeting and three pages of notes. I can't read 37 pages. I'm dedicated to the work here. But reading 37 pages of note to find a missing word is not a valuable us of my time. So, I have to oppose them until we get better notes. Motion to Adopt the August 25th Minutes, as Amended. Motion Passes 5-1, J. Gladstone voting No. Mr. Rosen: Moves to September 8th, any corrections or concerns? Ms. Crank: Packet Case 40, I have had my name misspelled in so many ways, but I've never been Alicia Clank. I totally laughed at that one. So, at the very top of that page. I will also kind of say to Judi's point is where not necessarily that it has to edited down so much, but if it's possible, and I know that staff is carrying a lot of responsibility on limited staff, if there is a way to kind of break up the topic as we're talking — because now, it kind of runs all together. So, if you read it, it feels like it's just kind of one, big, long discussion, as opposed to the two or three that we had. Mr. Engmann: Okay, yeah. I definitely can try — Ms. Crank: Yeah, so if there's any way, just kind of put in a break to say, okay, now, we're Planning Board Minutes September 22, 2021 Page 2 talking about this thing and then all that as a starter. But again, I totally appreciate and understand the constraints. Mr. Engmann: Yeah. If I can just add to that, it's something that we definitely want to get someone onboard. That is a reduced version, Judi, so it's 15 pages off of the way we get it in. Ms. Crank: I can tell because I can see where some was very abridged down, and then some were very verbatim. So, yeah. Ms. Gladstone: So, I appreciate the difficulty with staff, but how is it that the Arts Commission is able to get such succinct notes. Mr. Engmann: We used to have someone that did the minutes here for this board. They retired earlier in the year. And Rob, to his credit, tried to get someone else to take over this board to do the minutes, and nobody's taken them off on that order. That's the problem, no one that took up our request for this. Mr. Rosen: Any other changes to September 8th, other than giving Alicia yet another new name? Okay, hearing none, can I get a motion for approval with the change? (Motion is moved and seconded) Multiple: Aye. Mr. Rosen: Anybody opposed? Judi? Ms. Gladstone: Yep. Motion to Adopt the September 8t" Minutes, as Amended. Motion Passes (5-1), J. Gladstone voting No. Mr. Rosen: Thank you. And any abstentions? Yes, Nathan? Mr. Monroe: When I miss a meeting, having all the notes, it's very nice to have the entire rundown of the meeting. I appreciate it. And I understand what you're saying Judi. And typically, when I attend a meeting, I read my comments to make sure they're accurate and reflecting and skip everything else because I'm not going to spend my time reliving the entire meeting, as a timesaver for myself. So, if you take something from that, that's great. If you don't, that's fine too. Ms. Gladstone: Thanks for the suggestion, and I started to do that. And I found myself reading things. It's like, did I really say that? And because it's every single word, like the sos and the yeahs. And I — Planning Board Minutes September 22, 2021 Page 3 Ms. Crank: Yeah. I say gonna a lot apparently. Ms. Gladstone: Yeah. Anyway, so, thank you for the suggestion. I will try to stomach it and see if I can do it in the future. Mr. Rosen: All right. That motion passes. Announcement of the Agenda Mr. Rosen: I will now do the announcement of the agenda. And I do wanna thank you, Eric, for implementing the request we had previously made where if there isn't a topic for an agenda item, that agenda item is entirely removed. Thank you. That does help a lot. (Announces the Agenda) Audience Comments Mr. Engmann: Okay. We got four people on the board for items. So, I'll wait on their item that. We have Natalie Seitz. Ms. Seitz: Thank you. I've stopped reading my comments when they show up in the minutes, just so you know. So, I'm commenting tonight with regard to trees and EV standards. With regard to trees, last night, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the Storm Water Code. I wanted to use the opportunity to point out that this is one code where the city can make real progress if they [inaudible] retention and planting of trees. Trees are already recognized as a low -impact development best -management practice, 5.16 in the Western Washington Storm Water Manual. The city could take further steps to prioritize the use of this particular BMP in its code and seek to require drain entrenchments for trees as a storm water BMP. Drain entrenchment can provide long-term, durable space for trees in the urban environment and comes with a built-in enforcement mechanism through the Clean Water Act that would be significantly easier to enforce in a tree maintenance regulation. City planners can look to the City of Philadelphia for an example of trees used as drainage infrastructure. I hope the city will put in the preliminary planning work necessary to have this be a component of the city's code when the next municipal permit update happens in corresponding code revisions in five years. So then, with regard to the EV standards, I am disappointed that the planning board chose to go with Option 2 exceptions to the new code with the upgrades. While Highway 99 is an area of concern for utility upgrades, it is also a 7 of 10 for environmental health disparities, and 9 of 10 for environmental exposures, and a 7 Planning Board Minutes September 22, 2021 Page 4 of 10 for socioeconomic factors. What 9 of 10 means is that only 10 percent of communities in the state of Washington had worse environmental exposures than this community. And it is primarily due to vehicle emissions from Highway 99. It is more important that EV investment happens in the SR 99 quarter than any other area of the city for purely public health reasons. The city's desire to site low-income development here in conjunction with the exemptions will delay this investment, prolong negative exposures, and result in a lower standard of building for this area than the rest of the city. There's an argument that this type of investment follows growth, but I don't understand how the investment in electric infrastructure would happen with the exemptions when the exemptions are written in the code and no plans for the utility to upgrade the system in this area. Although Highway 99 is not specifically mentioned, the existing conditions are what they are with a lack of infrastructure in the city's desire that Highway 99 be the location for low-income development. This is where the exemption will impact. Sure, having no exemptions may delay development, which is why I suggest partnerships to offset the cost. I chose to focus on equity with my previous comments, and I'm adding on help today even though I know that it's likely too late. If I see it come up at the council, these will be my comments to them. Thank you for your time and consideration of these additional thoughts. Mr. Rosen: Asks if there is any other audience comment. (No one else, closes comments) New Business- Proposed Donation of Memorial Sculpture: Edmonds Veterans Plaza Memorial Mr. Rosen: We will now hear about the proposed donation of the memorial sculpture at the veteran's plaza and then have consideration. Ms. Chapin: Good evening. I am Frances Chapin. I'm the arts and culture manager for the City of Edmonds. And it's my pleasure to be here tonight to introduce an item on behalf of the Veterans Plaza Committee. They are represented here tonight by Brian Bishop and David Varnau, who I will introduce in a couple of minutes. But to bring their proposal for a memorial sculpture for the Veterans Plaza. And this is something that would be donated to the city. So, as the Parks Board, you are reviewing this tonight and the appropriateness of that for this park site. I wanted to start out though by just going very briefly through the process. The parks process for approving a donated memorial for a park site includes a review first by the Arts Commission to assess the general context of the Planning Board Minutes September 22, 2021 Page 5 piece that's being proposed and any potential impact on existing or planned public art in the vicinity. That is followed up by a review by planning board regarding appropriateness for the park site followed by an advertised public hearing at City Council prior to a council decision about acceptance of the memorial donation. So, the memorial process is a little bit different. It sounds similar in some ways, but it's a little bit different from the public art process which is what I usually am presenting because there's no specific design review of the concept, although comments about overall fit, safety, maintenance, and so forth are appropriate in any part of the city's review process. So, at the Public Safety Complex, which is where the Veterans Plaza is, there are several public art installations that have been there since the Public Safety Complex was built. There's several more in the general vicinity. And the plaza itself has memorial names on a wall that you'll see in the renderings. There's also a bronze sculpture of a dog honoring service animals in the area behind the proposed memorial site. And some of you, if you haven't been by there recently, there was a kiosk sited there that is no longer there. So, there actually are fewer elements in that plaza. So, after review and discussion of the proposal at the Arts Commission meeting on September 13th, the Arts Commission made a recommendation stating that the proposal was compatible with existing and planned public art elements in the vicinity. So, tonight, you're going to hear the presentation. And planning board has asked to review the memorial project in your role as the Parks Board and make a recommendation to City Council about the appropriateness of the memorial for the Veterans Plaza Park. So, now, I'm going to turn the presentation over to the Veterans Plaza Committee. So, hopefully, they can be brought on and allowed to screenshare their presentation. We have two people with us tonight. One is David Varnau, who is an Edmonds artist and sculptor and has designed the proposed memorial. And the other is Brian Bishop, who is a landscape architect from Site Workshop Landscape Architecture, and that's the firm that designed the Veterans Plaza originally. So, they will put it in the bigger context for you and then also talk about the details of the proposed memorial. Mr. Monroe: Frances, before we do that, when you say appropriateness, can you help me define what that means? What's our charge here tonight? Are we looking for — Ms. Chapin: I think you're looking for overall fit. Certainly, we would have concerns about something that did not appear to be unsafe that we would put in a park site, for example. But I think appropriateness in this case is a very general concept. Take a look at what's proposed. Is there anything that sets a red flag for you in terms of how well this will work in a public plaza area that is used by people of all ages. Planning Board Minutes September 22, 2021 Page 6 Mr. Monroe: Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Bishop: I'll introduce myself very briefly and then let David take over. I'm Brian Bishop, as Frances said. And I was the design for the original Veterans Plaza design process a number of years ago and saw that through design and construction and started out in — there was a competition through the city. And so, the group has asked me to come on and advise in terms of appropriateness within the plaza and kind of work with the team to locate the art and work through the particulars of how best to integrate it in a seamless way. And I'll turn it over to David now. Mr. Varnau: Hi, there, everybody. Yes, as Frances indicated, my name is David Varnau. I'm a local Edmonds artist. And I was approached by the Veterans Plaza Committee to make a proposal for a memorial sculpture to be located in the plaza. Ultimately, after a number of different submissions, what was settled on was a pair of realistically rendered hands, human hands, that are about five times life size. And they would be in a position, as you see in the picture, a gesture of giving or offering. And the image is intended to be a universal symbol of giving. The gesture, I think, resonates with all of us as conveying that kind of message. The title of the sculpture will be the gift of freedom. And it's intended to be a tasteful portrayal that pays homage to the sacrifice service members make and have made to protect our country. The title of the sculpture, as you can see in the picture, is actually inscribed on the front base of the sculpture memorial. And it's intended to provide a clear and unambiguous indication of what the image is all about. Below the sculpture, in the area immediately below the sculpture, is planned a quotation that would further reinforce the notion of the gift that veterans have given our country. I think we all as viewers and any viewers in the plaza will resonate with an image of the human hands. The hands, as we all recognize, can be very compelling as a form of communication. And as such, an image that is created using a pair of hands like this, can be very compelling. And the notion is that it would draw people into the plaza and kind of invite them to come up closer and thereby view the names of the Edmonds residents who over the years have given the ultimate sacrifice of their life as a gift of freedom. In terms of its size, it's, as I said, five times life size. The first drawing, you can see that the hands from left to right will be about four feet wide and about three and a half feet high. Just for a kind of sense of scale, the existing wall that is there, called the memorial wall, or as the veterans call it, the KIA wall, the killed in action wall, that wall from left to right, the tall portion of it, is 10 feet wide. And it varies in height because it's on a slope. But it's roughly the same height as the hands at the point where the hands are mounted on the wall. Planning Board Minutes September 22, 2021 Page 7 The notion that we are trying to convey is one of giving. We want it to be clear. And as such, there will be an inscription on the bottom that actually will read as follows — as I understand it, the veterans have chosen this quote, which reads, "To the brave and fallen, thank you for the gift of freedom. We will never forget freedom is not free. It has been bought with a price, a price of blood and sacrifice. If you love your freedom, thank a veteran." And this is something that a number of the veterans really have a lot of juice for in terms of its message. And there's a good strong support from the majority of veterans who have been involved in this project and have had the opportunity to comment and to vote on it. Next slide. You can see that the existing wall, you can see that we're looking at the south side of the memorial wall. The existing wall is 18 inches wide — or thick, let's call it. And for the size of the sculpture and to support it sufficiently, Brian will be talking about the need to install an additional extension on the wall to provide a sufficient base for the sculpture and to offer sufficient support. If you give us the next slide, Brian, this is kind of a bird's eye view of it. So, you can see the existing wall is this linear 10-feet long wall. And below the major point of part of the hands is the wall extension that will need to be constructed to support it. Next slide. As most of you probably know, cast metal sculptures typically are hollow. And that will be true of this one as well. It will somewhere in the neighborhood of a quarter if an inch thick throughout with some additional thickness in the area where the wrist contacts the base that you see here. It will all be cast aluminum. The aluminum will have a patina applied to it that will give it kind of a pewter color with various highlights of kind of some minimal amount of golds in it, grays, charcoal, just to kind of highlight its three dimensionality. Within the hollow of the sculpture will be a reinforcement structural armature to give it additional strength. And as Brian has said, we've had a structural engineer consulting on this to make certain that we have a robust and if anything overbuilt design so that it is stable and will withstand the vagaries of time. Brian's going to now take it from here to give you more clarification on number of features of the project. Mr. Bishop: As David alluded to, kind of the three considerations that myself and by extension the structural engineer who we've included on the team who happens to be a structural engineer who has significant experience in public art and art in highly accessible locations, so what I have been advising on in this process is really the placement of the memorial within the Veterans Plaza, the aesthetics of it, and trying to as best as possible fit into the intended concept for the — the original concept and the concept of the memorial plaza being able to evolve over time but that this is a good fit and then also going back to the engineering side, that it's safe and durable Planning Board Minutes September 22, 2021 Page 8 just given how accessible and public the proposed location is. So, on the screen, hopefully, we're all pretty familiar with the location of the Veterans Memorial Plaza, but here's Bell. Here's 5th and then the parking lot and municipal court. And I think we'd all be sitting over here in other times. And so, the main pathway from the sidewalk on Bell and the corner with 5th that has always been preserved in the design of the memorial plaza runs through here and then sort of pivots over in the KIA or the MIA wall that David referred to, has always been very prominent. But it's part of the procession. And so, if you're going to court, you'll see that. It doesn't block. We've always tried to accommodate the flow of pedestrians who are using the building, using the space, and also those who are taking part in the memorial and enjoying the space. And so, the location that's proposed and the wall that David is referring to, it's right here. It's really centered on that main walkway just to the north and west of the memorial garden. And so, the big oak tree that's in the space is just south of there. And so, we met up with David and with some of the members of the Veterans Committee, and David created a full-size mockup of the memorial. And so, we have been talking virtually about locations and what was appropriate for some time. And then we met out on site and placed the sculpture at the memorial in several locations and looked at it from a variety of different views to try to see what we felt was most appropriate to the design vocabulary of that memorial wall. And that wall was designed as really 15 feet divided into three. And I don't want to go too deep into design for this conversation. But we were very intentional about how that was set up and in a way that the steel plates where the names and the inscriptions are located, that was designed so that it could be added to or evolve over time. And then we had a seat next to it. And so, we reviewed a number of different locations and in the end, agreed that locating it on the center panel seemed to make the most sense. And we liked that it's a prominent location. It's visibly accessible. But it also is in the foreground of the garden beyond versus being in the foreground. The view on the screen, if you were walking up to the courts building, the council building, you would not see the building in the background. Your views and wayfinding is not impacted. And so, it sort of makes it an important part of the space but all keeps it somewhat separate. Additionally, the way that the wall was designed, we found provided an opportunity to expand the wall so that we could, as David indicated, have it engineered so that it could withstand many, many years of — I don't want to say use but basically engineer it so that it's safe if somebody decides they want to hang on it, not that that's encouraged but we all know that that can happen in public spaces and so Planning Board Minutes September 22, 2021 Page 9 basically, making sure that it's durable enough to withstand prominent placement in a public space. And so, this is the same design just three different views. And what we determined was that again we wanted to work off of that five-foot module from the steel plates that are the signage for the killed in action and missing in action names from the community and also the inspirational quote that comes with that. And so, we located it centered on the middle plate, and then we essentially are extending the wall back another 18 inches so that it looks intentional and so you can see it. You kind of get a little bit of a pinwheel effect where its wider. We've designed it such that the finishes can match, and it would be intended to be flush on the top and a seamless transition in the shape and the material finish for the plans. To share some of our progress, we've developed a pretty robust engineered solution for that base working with our structural engineer. This has actually changed a little bit in the last day or so but didn't include that for you. But essentially, we are doubling the size of the wall there, and we've confirmed that that's not going anywhere over time and definitely exceeds the minimum standards for a location such as this. So, that's what we wanted to share. We're happy to answer any questions or take any comments from the group. Thank you for the review. Mr. Rosen: Just wanted to say, Frances, always a pleasure to see you. And Brian, thank you for the work you've been doing for this city. And David, thank you for your art and what you are aspiring to do here. That ground is sacred ground for many people in the community, and we really appreciate you help in not only creating it originally but now enhancing it even further. It's an important hunk of dirt. Comments or questions from the group? Alicia and then Nathan. Ms. Crank: So, comment and a question. Comment is I do like where the placement is being proposed, especially from a disability access and accessibility standpoint. I like that it's where you can access it from the parking area which is completely kind of flat without any kind of bumps or humps to get over. I pay attention to those things a lot these days, so I like that that's a good placement for that. My question may seem like an obvious one, but I feel like I have to ask it, which is — I saw it in the presentation and in the notes that maintenance would be done by the VFW. But I am curious, since I don't know the makeup of the committee for this, if there was significant veteran input on the design, and if it was kind of rallied around and acceptable to them. Mr. Varnau: Yeah, this image was presented first to the committee and then Ron Clyboume took it to the general membership of VFW for a vote and received overwhelming approval for it. Mr. Rosen: I think there was a second part to that question though. What was the other part of Planning Board Minutes September 22, 2021 Page 10 it? Ms. Crank: No. That was it. I just really wanted to know if — unfortunately, there have been times, not here specifically, where memorials or tributes to a particular group wasn't vetted by the group being honored. And it came back as a, hey, we don't like that at all. Like I said, I feel like I didn't need to ask the question, but I just kind of wanted to get it on record since I didn't know the makeup of the committee and the total involvement of the VFW. Mr. Varnau: Yeah. In all truth, there was one outlier that had different ideas in the VFW group. But he was outvoted by the majority. Ms. Crank: Thank you for that. I appreciate it. Mr. Monroe: I had a couple questions and a couple comments. But to kind of pick up where Alicia left off, so great presentation. Thank you. So, the VFW looked at it, and I guess this is directed to maybe David or Eric. The planning board's not — we're not gonna make an artistic judgement. We're not artists. We're planning board members. Who else besides the VFW? They'll be recognizing this is a city area. This is in front of our city hall and our court. It shouldn't just be up to the VFW to decide what's appropriate here. I heard you mention our Art Commission looked at it. Were they evaluating this based on the aesthetics of it, or were they just looking a safety components? Ms. Chapin: That's a good question. The way our memorial donation process works for parks, the Arts Commission does not review it for the aesthetics or specific design. They review it for how it impacts other public art in the area, and they sort of overall fit. So, it's a little bit different. That's why I was saying it's different from our public art process. However, there is still a public hearing at City Council in which the public is invited to make comment because it is a process that involves City Council approval of the donation being offered to the city. Does that make sense. Mr. Monroe: And were you at the Art Commission? Ms. Chapin: Yes. Mr. Monroe: Were they able to refrain from making aesthetic decisions or aesthetic comments, or were they offering their opinion as well? Ms. Chapin: Well, there were various opinions. Let's put it this way. I think everybody on the Arts Commission would agree that David Varnau is a very gifted sculptor, does really beautiful work. And I did attach the minutes which are not verbatim, but the minutes from the Arts Commission meeting. So, you can see there was a little bit Planning Board Minutes September 22, 2021 Page 11 of discussion. And I think David addressed some of that. There was a question about making sure this is very much inclusive and universal. I think that was something that Alicia Crank just mentioned, that accessibility, it's something we think a lot about now with public art and anything like this. We want to make sure people can see it and view it easily without encumbrances, particularly for this plaza and this space. So, those were the kinds of things that the Arts Commission discussed. Mr. Monroe: I appreciate that. I just want to remind ourselves that we're not artists here in this group. I guarantee people are going to sit in the hands. I mean, I'm glad to hear that it's durable. People are going to sit in them and take photos. So, I'm trusting you'll make them durable enough for that. It's just too attractive not to. And then, I guess, as a personal note, thank a veteran — if you have freedom, thank a veteran personally seems kind of heavy handed. But it's not my venue to make that comment. It just seems very on point and heavy handed and a little bit not inclusive, but I'm gonna refrain from going further down that. Other than that, thank you for the presentation. I look forward to seeing the [inaudible] [00:42:54]. Mr. Rosen: Any comments from any of you or questions? Ms. Gladstone: Thank you for the presentation. And I'd say that it seems like you've given a lot of thought to the mechanics and the placement and the safety issues, the engineering. And it all sounds very sound to me from what I'm reading. And the one comment that I have — it kind of follows on Nathan's and also some of the notes from the Arts Commission. And I guess this is where appropriateness — being new to the commission, I'm not sure what the scope of appropriateness is. But if we're looking for right fit in terms of inclusiveness, I have some concerns that because it invokes Christian prayer rather than just giving — I really like the notion of giving and because I do think that the veterans are a part of what gives us freedom. Their role is really important, and I appreciate the sentiment. I like the words, and I like the quote. But I think the paragraph from the Arts Commission captures something that is really important as a community in terms of what else does it say to the community? And I have concerns. And that may not be in the range of the planning board's role of commenting on appropriateness, but it does raise some concerns to me that it's not inclusive because it has such close affiliation with Christian prayer exclusively. Mr. Varnau: I'll attempt to respond to that. I think there may be a tendency to associate this image for some people with Christian prayer. If we were having this discussion in another country where the predominant religion was something other than Christianity, they may have a similar kind of response, like, I associate this with Buddhism, for Planning Board Minutes September 22, 2021 Page 12 example. I don't think Christianity owns this image per se. I think human gestures are universal is my point. And this is a gesture of giving, of offering. Yes. It can be used as a symbol of worship. But it's not exclusively conveying that message — is where I'm coming from in proposing that gesture. There was some talk about having the hands down lower, for example, and we did a very thorough analysis of what that would look like visually. And as you back up from hand — well, first of all, how a pair of hands that are basically horizontal to the ground appear can differ depending on which side of the hands you're on. If you're on the fingertip side of the hands, it can look like begging. If you're on the other side of the hands, it can look like giving. But visually, if you have the hands tipped down low like this and then you back up away from the sculpture — just look at the photograph for a moment and look and just back up away from it, if the hands were tipped down, all you would see would be that when you're backing away from the image. You would just see this, as you can see. And part of the reason for using this particular gesture is just the abstract image that it creates. It almost looks like a bird. These two hands look like the wings of a bird, almost like a dove, for example. And that's what particularly interested me was just the visual impact of the abstracted image of the hands, particularly from a distance. So, that's where it was coming from. Mr. Pence: Thank you. When I first saw the image of the hands, to me, they looked more like they were there to catch something falling from the sky rather than offering something up. I assume the design is locked, and we're at the fabrication stage, and we're not tweaking this thing anymore. Is that correct, David? Mr. Varnau: No. We're not locked. We're not in fabrication. We're not starting anything until the thing is approved. I mean, maybe, he's catching acorns from the oak tree. I don't know. We can really run with this if we want to. Mr. Pence: And I guess my more basic question is, what alternatives crossed your mind or were considered by the committee before the decision was made to go with the upraised hands? I mean, you say this was presented to the VFW and the people in attendance, all except one, agreed with it. But it wasn't like they had a choice between this and something else, I guess. Mr. Varnau: Right, the committee considered a couple of other submissions that I had proposed. They also considered one proposed by another sculptor as well. And this is what the committee settled on — that was their process —then took it to their membership. Mr. Pence: And I guess my last comment is — and I don't mean this to be harsh or cutting, but upraised hands is not exactly a new concept for a piece of art or sculpture or a Planning Board Minutes September 22, 2021 Page 13 memorial. Maybe common is not the right word. But there's something about it, I guess, that leaves me a little underwhelmed. And for the record, I'm speaking as a veteran. It's nice. And if this is what the groups and the people involved want to go with, I certainly won't object. That's my last words on this. Mr. Rosen: Alicia, before you go around, I just want to make sure Todd has a chance. Mr. Cloutier: I like the submission. I agree with the committee. I'm also a veteran, but that should have no weight here. I'm just a planning board member here. And I appreciate especially all the background material you gave us because that made it very easy for me. I was done before we even started the meeting. I am ready to move this forward. Mr. Rosen: Alicia, you wanted to respond to some earlier comments. Ms. Crank: No. I was just going to reiterate that that's why I asked the question I asked initially about if the veterans had a significant voice in the design because, we don't have any say in the design per se. But if we're talking appropriateness, I wanted to just kind of make sure that whatever feelings you might have about the design — I'm not a veteran, so I feel like this might mean something to veterans that's different from me as a non. So, that's why I wasn't trying to necessarily critique design, which is not what we're supposed to be doing anyway. But other than that, I think it is good for this space. I don't see any issues with it, especially with the accessibility pieces. And I'm ready to make the recommendation when others are as well. Mr. Rosen: I'll jump in with my comments, and then back to Judi. I have three, and I'll just throw them out there all at once, and you can respond. First, I was just curious. We referred to it, I think, as a quote. I was wondering who the quote is attributed to. The second question is, for the words, the title, the quote, and the design, are we confident that we're clear of any trademark or copyright infringements? And then my third sort of plays back to Judi's comment earlier in terms of — and I really appreciate, David, your comments about what you hope the image — and how it resonates and how a different viewer, not only in that plaza but in different parts of the world, will interpret it differently, but I was curious if it might be possible to sort of proactively validate that it doesn't conjure up an image — so, I understand you're going to do a public hearing, but as we know, that is a hard thing to get people to do. I'm wondering about reaching out to a variety of faith -based organizations across a spectrum and just sort of testing that, yes, indeed, 100 percent of the people just don't see it as a Christian symbol, or they don't see it as offensive. So, just sort of validating across the diversity that is Edmonds that people see it the way we want Planning Board Minutes September 22, 2021 Page 14 to. So, that would be a suggestion unless you feel like you have confidence that nobody's going to see it in a way you don't want to. So, those are my three, who's the attributed to, trademark/copyright, and sort of validating how it is viewed. Mr. Varnau: Those are all great comments. And the copyright one is a good one. From my research, I've not been able to identify any copyright -associated with that particular gesture primarily because it's so universal. As far as the attribution to the quote, I cannot answer that. That's one that Ron Clybourne came up with. And there was a comment one of you made about it being somewhat heavy handed. There's actually a sentence or two that was in the original quote that I thought was extremely heavy handed. And I urged them to take it out because of concerns about alienating people etc. But I could put that question to them, and I could also pass that comment onto them as well and see if they want to rework that quote in some way. As far as validating, I guess my experience with public sculpture and even sculpture that's in the public eye, you can get a different view about it from almost everybody. And people resonate in different ways to a given image. I mean, it sounds like you're asking for a survey of sorts in that regard. Mr. Rosen: The city has enough scars, putting art in front of the public in that format, more of that, I guess, I wouldn't even call it a focus group, just sort of a check in with a cross section of community people that we have relationships across the diversity that is the community. That's all I'm suggesting. And I agree with you. Sorry that I'm pushing back a little bit. Recognizing that art is in the eyes of not only the artist but the beholder, in art like this, it is less about you doing a personal expression and more about the city, in my opinion, making a statement and trying to in fact create an emotional response in a very specific direction. I think in that case, it is different because we are trying to say, does this work, because if it doesn't, then why are we doing it? And I personally like it. I'm like everybody else at this point saying, yes, let's go forward. My question is only related to, you are talking to seven people, and we don't represent the diversity that is Edmonds. Ms. Gladstone: Following up on what you were saying because the thought that was going through my mind is I'm just wondering if this is something that the Diversity Committee for the city may weigh in on, because it is a public space. I know when I was preparing for this meeting, I did a Google search for examples on symbols of giving because of my initial reaction to it. And then I looked up symbols of Christian prayer. And this comes up if you look at it, and it's specifically identified as Christian prayer. And I guess for a public space is my concern, particularly being sensitive to the separation of the church and Planning Board Minutes September 22, 2021 Page 15 state — and so, I guess I'm with you that surveying people is not a good way to go with art because it can be interpreted multiple ways. But in terms of the sensitivity of the piece and its potential association for selective groups, — maybe the diversity committee is a place to just vet it through because of the sensitivity around religious things in public places. I think if you google, you'll find that this kind of image is attributed specifically to Christian prayer. And I have a problem with that in terms of it being what is in a public place. Mr. Varnau: I understand what you're saying. I guess that's up to the board. If you want to recommend that it be presented to the Diversity Committee, that's your call. Mr. Rosen: So, let me see if I can capture where we are and see if we have consensus. So, I think we have consensus that we recommend this be sent to the Council and are also recommending that either prior to their review, that the Diversity Committee be accessed for their feedback. I don't think we're recommending that they have veto power, just that it be another data point for you. So, does that sound to the rest of the committee like what we are recommending? Alicia, you were about to say something. Ms. Crank: I'm 75 percent there. I don't know if I would say send it to the Diversity Committee. I think that's going to create additional issue, especially if it's trying to — I understand the reasons. But I think when you have kind of the group that it's supposed to be honoring potentially being vetoed by another group that wasn't necessarily originally a part of this process, I think that could blow back on us in a way that we don't want. Mr. Monroe: I would echo that a little bit with Alicia, that our charge as a group was to decide if this is appropriate for this park. I think it's pretty hard for us to decide that veterans don't know what's appropriate for the veteran part. That sounds like a pretty difficult bar for us to clear. So, I'm going to recommend we approve it. If council wants to reach down and ask diversity to look at it, they'll do that. It's not our job to point that out. I think for our group, we need to check the box that we looked at it and that we agree. The only question to us is, is this appropriate for the Veterans Plaza? Mr. Rosen: Nathan, I guess, what I would suggest is that that is one filter. And to your point about the quote, which came from that organization, you as a community member felt that was a bit heavy handed. So, if the intent that we want the community to understand the gift that veterans gave us and our charge is to say is it appropriate, then isn't it appropriate for us to recommend that we validate it with the community? Mr. Monroe: I would say that I prefaced my comment by saying I'm not an artist, and I don't Planning Board Minutes September 22, 2021 Page 16 know what makes good art. That's why you have an Art Commission. In my personal opinion, the same sentiment could be conveyed in a more eloquent way than that. And I was inviting David to think about that. But as a board member, I think my charge is to decide if this artwork is appropriate for this park, and I think it is. I think I can't find fault with that. Mr. Rosen: Because I think some of us would also like to make sure that the council hears this message as part of their consideration, that we offer up that as a consideration as they review it and that we offer up that they considered potentially seeking the guidance of the committee. So, it's not a recommendation that they do, just a suggestion that perhaps they consider that. Ms. Gladstone: Mike, I guess I would be comfortable with that because I think they need to understand that it may have unintended consequences that don't detract from the beauty of the art but more its placement in a public location. And maybe, the Diversity Committee isn't the right place. It just came to my mind as a venue that is available within the city to offer some viewpoint that says, not everybody ascribes to the same thing. And we have community members of all different types and how universally felt is it because, it may not be. So, maybe, the Diversity Committee isn't the right — but I was trying to offer something that would get at the point that this is to honor the veterans, but putting it in a public location, you don't want to end up with unintended consequences that end up alienating other parts of the community. Mr. Rosen: Frances or Angie, I'd love to hear from you if any of this making you break a sweat. Ms. Feser: So, this is an interesting situation, and this has been brought forward to this group, as Nathan mentioned earlier, in the context of, is this an appropriate donation to accept in this park? There will be opportunities for public review and comment during a public hearing in front of the council in weeks to come. I'm not sure. I think you have to be careful because if you were to say, we want the Diversity Committee to look at this, so just this art memorial donation, then you're setting a precedent, right? Why would this one be reviewed or be recommended to be reviewed by others? And moving forward, would you do that every other time? Those are my thoughts. There will be the opportunity for the public to express their comments about this proposal during a public hearing process in front Council. Ms. Chapin: I was just going to add that this particular park is the Veterans Plaza, but it is also a public park. And it is the public entry to the Public Safety Complex. It's a very well -used park in the center of town. So, in terms of appropriateness, I think you've raised some very good points and that it's important that those be conveyed in some form to City Council because that's your job here is to look at the overall appropriateness of this. I wanted to reiterate that it's not coming forward as an Planning Board Minutes September 22, 2021 Page 17 artwork donation because that would be very different. I hope you all read the minutes from the Arts Commission. They raised the same concerns that you've raised, plus asked other questions. Their role is not to evaluate the aesthetics of it in these particular circumstances because it's coming forward as a memorial. So, it almost falls in a more general way to your review. Mr. Rosen: I'd like to put this in the form of a motion. Does anybody want to take a shot at one? Mr. Monroe: I guess we're moving with the artwork for the memorial as presented. It's moved onto Council with the following considerations. Is that what we're saying, that they consider the impact to diversity. Ms. Crank: I wouldn't even say consider to be honest. And I want to make sure we're not being super heavy handed in what we're asking the council to do, but I like where you're going. Mr. Monroe: I can do whatever I want. I'm on my way — Ms. Crank: You can. You're leaving. You're out of here. I would probably say I like everything you said, but I would probably add to that with the notation that board members recognized that there might be some additional community input around what the symbolism of the design is, kind of like a footnote as opposed to, we're suggesting that you go and talk to the Diversity Commission or any other thing. Mr. Rosen: I'm comfortable with that. Mr. Monroe: I think bottom line, it's all going to end up as bolded text in the minutes. Ms. Crank: I know. Mr. Monroe: Hopefully, they're reading that. They're reading everything else, not at 37 pages, but they can read that part. Ms. Crank: So, move that we recommend staff s recommendation to move this forward onto Council with the notation that board members recognize there may be some additional conversation or concerns from public around design or something like that. Mr. Rosen: Interpretation, right? Ms. Crank: Interpretation. Mr. Monroe: With regard to diversity, there were good brought -out points. Our Commission brought them up. They brought up here — it wasn't just generic continued look at Planning Board Minutes September 22, 2021 Page 18 design, but it was diversity in — Mr. Rosen: So, Eric, read that back. Ms. Gladstone: Diversity and inclusion. Ms. Crank: Honestly, I think interpretation is a better word because inclusion's going to be built into that, but it is going to be more about how people interpret it. And I feel like a lot of conversation, especially a lot of what you brought up, Judi, was around interpretation. Mr. Rosen: I'm good with that. So, it's not tight yet, but I think we're all know what we're voting on. Is that correct? Ms. Gladstone: I guess I'd like to hear back what it is again if you could because I'm not sure I totally tracked. Mr. Monroe: And she's not going to read the minutes. Mr. Engmann: I got most of it until the last part. So, motion to approve the artwork with the notation that the board recognizes that — that was the part that I didn't get past that point. Ms. Gladstone: That's what I want to hear. Ms. Crank: That there may be questions from community members around interpretation and design. Mr. Engmann: Community questions about interpretation and design. So, moving forward with the notation that the board recognized that there may be questions about interpretation and design. Ms. Chapin: So, nothing about not artwork — Memorial not artwork. Ms. Fesler: Thanks, Frances. I was going to clarify that when the dust settled. You have very different processes, yes, so it's important to recognize the difference between the two. Mr. Rosen: If you are going to go back and research or just validate our safety with the words, the title, I would just do that as well, make sure the title is clean because you talked about going back to Clybourne about the quote, but I wasn't sure if the title had been searched. Mr. Varnau: I can look further. Planning Board Minutes September 22, 2021 Page 19 Mr. Rosen: Okay. So, we have a motion on the floor. May I have a second? Mr. Pence: I second. Ms. Chapin: A second. Mr. Rosen: Any discussion? Mr. Monroe: Just wanted to say that's a pretty loose motion. I mean, it's, hey, we're moving this on, but we don't really know what's going on. Good luck. Ms. Gladstone: I guess they'll be able to read the notes, what everybody has said. Mr. Monroe: I find if you don't put it in the actual motion, it gets skipped over. Ms. Gladstone: I think you're right. Mr. Rosen: All right. All in favor, raise your hand or say aye. Multiple: Aye. Mr. Rosen: Opposed? Mr. Monroe: Yeah. Mr. Rosen: And abstain? Ms. Gladstone: I'm going to abstain. Mr. Monroe: I'm going to go with aye. I got to go back with the aye. Mr. Rosen: All right. So, we had one abstention, and the rest were in favor. Motion made that, The Planning Board recommends appropriateness of the memorial donation for the park site, with the notation that board members recognize that there may be questions from the community around interpretation of the design. Motion passes 5-0-1, J. Gladstone abstaining. Mr. Rosen: Frances, Brian, David, and Angie, thank you for your patience and your explanation and all the work. This is a noble effort and that it is also a donation is just amazing. And David, you are gifted, and thank you for sharing that gift with our community. Mr. Varnau: You're welcome. And thank you for your openness and receptivity to hearing the presentation and your time put into it. Mr. Varnau: I think a great deal needs to go to Brian Bishop, who's donated a great deal of his Planning Board Minutes September 22, 2021 Page 20 time for the design work. Mr. Rosen: Thank you very much. You can't walk through there without being emotionally impacted. So, it worked. Extended Agenda Mr. Rosen: I think we are ready to look at our extended agenda, which you all had in your packet. Does anybody have any specific questions or concerns? Ms. Crank: I have a question about our next meeting. I know right now all three things listed are tentative. Are any of those not tentative at this point, or are they still all tentative? Mr. Engmann: The last two are pretty solid. Just waiting for a couple things with those items there. I'm pretty sure that Steve Toy is going to come. So, tentative for all three, but probable for all three. Ms. Crank: Then we have on November 24th a question mark. I think you need to just make a decision about canceling that meeting. Mr. Engmann: Does the board have to do that? I'm not sure if that's how they do it here or not. Mr. Rosen: Yes. We usually do. Mr. Engmann: Which would be fine for staff. Do you want to make that motion? Mr. Rosen: Does anybody have a strong preference that they would like to express? Ms. Crank: Yes. Mr. Pence: Mr. Chairman, I guess I would only suggest that rather than just canceling it and having one fewer meeting to do our business this year, that we try to reschedule it to a night that's not the night before Thanksgiving. I don't know. I'm just concerned that we've lost a few meetings along the way this year already. That's my concern. Mr. Rosen: Alicia, you were about to say something. Ms. Crank: Nah. I'm good with canceling the meeting. I mean, that's what we've traditionally done. It's not anything new. And honestly, I would only reconsider rescheduling to a new date if we had something that was time sensitive. But that's my opinion. Mr. Rosen: Now I'm seeing some nods in that favor as well. So, Eric, if you could. I think what we're saying is we aren't opposed to rescheduling, but we would like it to be meaningful work that is time sensitive. So, if that is the case, because we know Planning Board Minutes September 22, 2021 Page 21 there is a lot that we anticipate coming to us and things we are working on, so we would like to, as Roger pointed out, contribute as we are directed to do so. Comments for the Good of the Order Mr. Rosen: We'll do comments for the good of the order. Eric, I'll start with you. Mr. Engmann: Not too much. The webpage is basically done now. Instead of having it come back and talking about it here, I figured I would just send it to you all individually. And if you have comments, you can just let me know. I'd love to hear from you, especially since most of you have backgrounds with a lot of this work. I'm looking forward to having that out there. Mr. Pence: Well, I guess I'll repeat the topic that I brought up last time, and that is the double tracking of the railroad through Edmonds. There's just a whole lot of issues that that generates and opportunities that that presents. I think that the planning board needs to be involved in that conversation. I'd like to request a briefing from staff and the railroad as soon as that can be arranged. Admittedly, probably not until sometime next year. We don't seem to know the railroad's schedule or if they even have one other than real soon. I just want to make sure that the Planning Board is in the loop. We shouldn't be sidelined until there's a code revision issue that comes down the pike that we ought to be part of their conversation. When you read the state law on planning boards and planning commissions, they're usually called, it's clear that the intent is that they be involved in a range of planning issues and not merely code revision. Mr. Cloutier: I have nothing to add other than, Nathan, you'll be missed. Mr. Monroe: Thanks, Todd. Ms. Crank: Nothing to add. Ms. Gladstone: I don't know if others had noticed it, but there's some roundtables going on. Edmonds Civic Roundtable's doing a program on housing on Monday at 4:00 that looked interesting and could be informative for our future discussions on housing. So, I thought I'd share that. Mr. Monroe: Just a comment about what Roger was saying there. In my day job, I work for Sound Transit. And a number of cities have taken on putting on high -capacity transit code requirements, meaning if you are bringing high -capacity transit to the city, you must do XYZ. And a lot of those things, some of them are- add 500 parking spaces or must conform to our set of requirements. But it's an interesting point, if we tag onto BNSF, they're bringing heavy rail through our town. Now you must follow Planning Board Minutes September 22, 2021 Page 22 these codes. It's a real interesting opportunity to tag on a bunch of code requirements for BNSF, and that is an intersection between planning and the planning board for code. So, I'd ask Eric to think about that and look into it, if there's a precedence for it. And I think the City of Kent, City of Federal Way have done that, the Sound Transit, and that's why we could do it with BNSF. Mr. Rosen: Yet another reason you will be missed. I thank you all for your service and wisdom again tonight. And I look forward to the next discussion with Nathan still with us. Thank you all. The meeting is adjourned at 8:21. Adjournment The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:09 p.m. Planning Board Minutes September 22, 2021 Page 23