Dear Editor:
I am writing to express support of the Port of Edmonds request to modify the applicable sections within the City’s Comprehensive Plan incorporating their submitted master plan. This plan represents only conceptual land use elements and configurations associated with potential future re-development at the Port’s Harbor Square property. Approval of this master plan is only the first step towards further detailed approval processes by the Port, City, and public once the Port engages a developer/builder(s) and any specific project(s) proposal subsequently brought forward. While recognizing that their originally submitted plan is subject to modification inherent with the City’s Council’s approval process I believe both the tenor and scope of such revisions should preserve as closely as possible the original concepts within the Port’s plan.
To this end I would like to offer the following points:
-The concept plan submitted by the Port meets the requirements and design guidelines set forth within the City’s Comp Plan. Specifically our Comp Plan for the Harbor Square area already supports mixed use including residential and taller buildings while also respecting and supporting other land use aspects for this property as desired by the City as follows:
-Accommodation of human scale by varying street orientations, building stepbacks, and building heights.
-Pedestrian routes, circulation, and access linking both elements within the potential complex plus approaches from other sections of town (primarily Dayton/SR-104)
-Accommodations for future potential public amenities to be incorporated by the City
-Respect for the marsh and adherence to the pending revised Shoreline Master Program currently under City review
-Appropriate building architectural styles and features
-Public view corridor preservation
-Relative mix or ratio of uses
-Accommodation of existing major uses of the site—specifically the hotel and health club
There is a great deal of public support for a master plan covering Harbor Square. The plan submitted by the Port reflects such support. Furthermore, Action Plan Number 1b.3 ranked ‘Very High’ in priority by the public within the final draft of the City’s new Strategic Plan states: “Review and approve a long term master plan and agreement for the Port of Edmonds Harbor Square property that enhances the waterfront environment, public access, and promotes mixed use development.” This plan is before us now.
Regardless of format and content of a finally approved plan, the result should reflect the following:
– Adherence to current provisions within the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan
– Support by the Port for continuing efforts by their organization to pursue re-development potential and activity in accordance with the approved master plan, and
-Flexibility in content and tenor necessary to attract a high quality development proposal and agreement towards achieving reality of the plan and fulfillment of the city’s strategic plan goal as referenced above.
Respectfully submitted,
Philip Lovell
Edmonds
I don’t know if Philip is from Edmonds. At least, I couldn’t find him in the white pages. I may be wrong, of course.
Mr. Lovell is a long-time member of the City of Edmonds Planning Board; he was its chairman in 2011 and 2012. He has spent a massive amount of time studying the Port’s proposal.
Thank you, Ron. He’s obviously invested in this to the exclusion of the residents who have another vision.
I disagree with Mr. Lovell. The height variance request and the high density of residential, in my opinion, would be detrimental to the marsh and detrimental to Edmonds.
Edmonds has a specific feel that would be taken away with the development as presented. The area does need improving BUT not at the expense of so much.
As do I, Mr. Sherwood. Thank you. We need another path entirely. I don’t buy into this plan.
Mr. Sherwood, is there an environmental study that supports your opinion that such development would be detrimental to the marsh and to Edmonds? The transit study I found, that is quite comprehensive, suggests that planned and strategic growth around transit is beneficial in several ways to a community; if you have something that counters that, please share. I’ve not been able to find an environmental study that supports how it would be detrimental to the marsh, so if you have this, please share. Thank you Sir.
I’ve read that the group Friends of the Marsh support the Port’s plan as do I. And I too live in Edmonds.
Karen,
i could be wrong – but . . .
at a city council meeting – i thought i heard a representative of friends of the marsh say they support the plan –
BUT –
it sounded as if they were bought – they thought it was the way to get funding for the projects they wanted…
anyone know otherwise?
ALSO –
i’ve begun asking around to see if there are other like-minded people . . .
“The” marsh – is a salt and fresh water marsh . . .
seems to me – that could become a feature to promote… lots of people could come for educational purposes
if a few people could make a fortune, in the last century, selling “pet rocks”, edmonds, being full of creative people could use a living wetland to “put edmonds on the the map”!
The marsh is a nice feature near the port, but it will eventually cease to exist. The amount of vegetation that is deposited in it every fall will eventually fill it in. It is the natural progression for that area due to slow movement of the water there.
Who cares about the marsh? Let’s get this done. Who cares about anyone’s views? They do not deserve having them. Let’s just jack up the heights. Can we park under it? No because there is not a sump pump in the world that will keep it dry. Who cares, let’s just get this done. Hell, who cares at all? Sorry, I’m turning my sarcasm off now!
Well I care and I thank the council members who do also.
How does this project benefit the citizen tax payers of Edmonds?
Perhaps a reduction in City spending would serve the tax paying citizens better.
Building over height housing by the port in an attempt to bring in young professionals to take an unreliable train to their jobs in Seattle, is a stretch at best. In my opinion this is not in the best interest of the tax payers of Edmonds and I oppose it!
Tom, as we learned last night, this project will look quite differently moving forward.
The project will add revenue to the city coffers and will help insulate from future tax increases – at best spread the tax burden among more businesses and individuals. Your taxes will go up but perhaps not at the rate it would have.
The study shows the marsh would likely benefit from the project – please review the environmental study.
Some views could potentially be impacted – and while this would be unfortunate, it is not something “new.” Cities across America, including Seattle, have dealt with this – this is the risk/reward we have when purchasing a view, unless we are living on the bluff or established neighborhood. My grandfather told me that if I didn’t want neighbors, buy the property next to me – if I couldn’t, then don’t complain.
A builder is not going to build – and our building department would not allow build – on unstable soil that would require a constant use of sump pump.
Rhetoric is nice – even gets healthy debate going, as I remind our team when working with the folks in Olympia and DC – but it has to be anchored in fact, not just baseless emotion.
I’m sure we can find ways to work together to make Edmonds even better.