PLN20100022 EX 1-3.pdfCITY OF E D M O N D S GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • 425-771-0220 • FAX 425-771-0221
Website: www.d.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
C. 1890
PLANNING DIVISION
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Project: Point Edwards Landscape Modification
File Number: PLN20100022
Date of Report:16'y' 26, 2010
0
From:��--
Kernen Lien, Associate Planner
Public Hearing: June 2, 2010 at 7:00 P.M.
Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION:
This is a continuation from the May 5, 2010 ADB meeting. At the May 5th meeting the
ADB heard two separate proposals for landscape modifications for the Point Edwards
Condominium Development. Both requests were consolidated under a single permit
number PLN20100022. The first request was from the Point Edwards Homeowners
Association, which proposed to remove English laurel (Prunus laurocerasus) from the
landscape without providing a replacement species. This request was approved
(Exhibit 2).
The second request was from Point Edwards LLC. Upon inspection of the landscaping
for Buildings 6 and 7 for the release of a landscape maintenance bond, City of Edmonds
staff determined that large portions of the approved landscaping appeared to be missing.
Particularly on the view side of Buildings 6 and 7 where serviceberry (Amelanchier
alnifolia) or staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina) were suppose to be planted according to the
approved landscape plan (Exhibit 4, highlighted plants not present). The Point Edwards
LLC proposed to replace plants along the southern property line fence, while not planting
the trees on the view side of Buildings 6 and 7 (Exhibit 3 — 4).
The ADB felt that some trees should be planted in the original locations identified on the
approved landscape plans (Exhibit 10). The ADB indicated a willingness to consider an
alternate plan that would provide a level of density similar to that approved in the original
Exhibit 1
PLN20100022
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
Point Edwards Landscape Modification
File Number: PLN20100022
plan, maintain the integrity of the hillside and protect the view of the property owners
above. As a result, the request for the Point Edward LLC was continued in order to allow
the applicant times to submit an alternate proposal (Exhibit 2). Forrest Jammer of
Thomas Rengstorf and Associates has prepared two proposals for consideration (Exhibits
5-6).
IL GENERAL INFORMATION:
1. Owner: Point Edwards Homeowners Association
2. Applicant: Forrest Jammer, Thomas Rengstorf and Associates
3. Tax Parcel Number: 27032600102600 (and others)
4. Location: 31 and 41 Pine Street (Exhibit 7)
5. Zonin : Master Plan Hillside Mixed -Use (MP 1) (Exhibit 7)
6. Existing Use: Condominium Development
7. Proposed Use: There is no proposed change in the use of the site.
8. Request: Point Edwards LLC has offered up two proposals for consideration by the
ADB.
a. Proposal One is to replace the trees not planted on the view sides of Buildings 6
and 7 with shrubs at a ratio of three shrubs for every tree resulting in the planting
of 126 shrubs. The proposed shrub species are redtwig dogwood (Cornus
stolonifera `Siberica'), Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium), and common
snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) (Exhibit 5). Additionally, the trees on the
south side of Building 7 along the fence and property line will be replaced as
indicated in the letter and highlighted on the plans by Bruce Moe (Exhibits 3 - 4).
b. Proposal Two proposes shifting the location of some of the tress to the SW corner
of the property, switching one of the tree species from serviceberry (Amelanchier
alnifolia) to a dwarf variety of serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia `Regent
dwarf'). Remaining trees not planted will be replaced at a ratio of roughly three
to one with the same shrubs identified in Proposal One. Additionally, the trees on
the south side of Building 7 along the fence and property line will be replaced as
indicated in the letter and highlighted on the plans by Bruce Moe (Exhibits 3 - 4).
III. PUBLIC CONCERNS:
Since the subject proposal is not a "Major" project (i.e. it does not trigger SEPA review),
public notice was not required. To date, no public comments have been received.
IV. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE:
This application was reviewed and evaluated by the City's Public Works Department and
Engineering Division. Public Works had no comments, while the Engineering Division
approved of the proposal with the following condition:
Consistent with ECDC 20.13.020, trees and very large shrubs should be planted at
least five feet from any water/sewer lines. Landscape plantings should reflect
consideration of plantings in relation to all utility lines.
Page 2 of 7
Point Edwards Landscape Modification
File Number: PLN20100022
In addition, plantings shall not inhibit sight distance at driveways and at entry/exit
points to the Loop Road off Pine Street. (Exhibit 8)
V. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT:
1. Topoeraphy: The Point Edwards development sits on a hill overlooking the Port of
Edmonds and Puget Sound. The portion of the site where the condominiums sit
slopes gently to the northwest, then drops off sharply towards the railroad tracks and
Edmonds Marsh at the base of the property.
2. Critical Areas: Critical area reviews were conducted for the subject property in 1994
and 2002. The critical area reviews determined that studies were required due to
slopes and wetlands. A geotechnical report was completed in conjunction with the
development of Point Edwards and a buffer reduction to 10 feet was granted for the
steep slopes.
3. SEPA Review: A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued for the
Point Edwards development. No further SEPA review is required for this application.
VI. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS:
The subject property sits on the old Unoco site. The site is bordered by the Town of
Woodway to the south, Port of Edmonds to the northwest and the Edmonds Marsh to the
northeast (Exhibit 7). Apart from Woodway to the south, the property is largely
surrounded by undeveloped property. The MP2 zone to the north of the subject property
is undeveloped and may become the site of Edmonds Crossing ferry terminal at some
point in the future.
VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is "Master Plan Development." The
site is also located within the "Downtown Waterfront Activity Center." Pages 41 through
51 of the Comprehensive Plan contain the goals and policies applicable to the
"Downtown Waterfront Activity Center." The Master Plan Development area includes
the waterfront area south of Olympic Beach, including the Port of Edmonds and the Point
Edwards and multi modal developments. This area is governed by the master plans for
the Port of Edmonds, Point Edwards, and the Edmonds Crossing project.
VIII. APPLICABLE CODES:
1. Landscaping
A. ECDC 20.13 contains the City of Edmonds landscaping requirements and
ECDC 20.13.020 contains the general design standards.
B. The landscape plans under review were reviewed and approved under
ADB-02-226 with the following condition:
Staff shall confirm the landscape plan has not significantly changed from
the current proposal or it must return to the Board for final approval
(Exhibit 9).
Page 3 of 7
Point Edwards Landscape Modification
File Number: PLN20100022
C. Since both proposals appear to be significant changes from the approved plans,
the requests to modify the landscape plans are being brought back before the
ADB.
IX. STAFF ANALYSIS:
Upon inspection of the landscaping for Buildings 6 and 7 for the release of a
landscape maintenance bond, City of Edmonds staff determined that large portions of
the approved landscaping appeared to be missing (Exhibit 4, yellow highlights).
Particularly on the view side of Buildings 6 and 7 where serviceberry (Amelanchier
alnifolia) or staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina) were suppose to be planted according to
the landscape plan approved with building permits BLD20060774 and BLD20060775
(Exhibits 8 and 10). Photos of this area are included in Exhibits 11 and 12.
2. Forrest Jammer of Thomas Rengstorf and Associates has indicated that there were 42
trees on the slopped west side of Buildings 6 and 7 were not planted as indicated on
the approved landscape plan.
3. Point Edwards LLC — Proposal One
A. Proposal One is to replace the trees not planted on the view sides of Building 6
and 7 with shrubs at a ratio of three shrubs for every tree resulting in the planting
of 126 shrubs. The proposed shrub species are redtwig dogwood (Cornus
stolonifera `Siberica'), Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium), and common
snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) (Exhibit 5). Additionally, the trees along the
south side of Building 7 along the fence and property line will be replaced as
indicated in the letter and highlighted on the plans by Bruce Moe (Exhibits 3 and
4).
B. A comparison of the number and growth characteristics of the species from the
approved plan and Proposal One for the sloped area is detailed in the Table 1
below.
Table 1: Comparison of approved landscape plan and modified landscape plan
Proposal One.
Species
Number
Height I
Trees not planted as approved by building ermit BLD20060774 - 775
Serviceberry
7
20 feet
Staghorn sumac
35
15 feet
Revision Proposal One
Redtwig dogwood
54
7 — 9 feet
Oregon grape
36
6 feet
Common snowberry
36
2 - 6 feet
1: Height of plant species is taken from Western Garden Book (Sunset Publishing Corporation
2001). See Exhibits 13 - 17.
2: The Western Garden Book indicates that staghorn sumac can sometimes grow up to 30 feet
(Exhibit 14). At the May 5, 2010 ADB meeting, Mr. Jammer testified that the sumac where
growing well at Point Edwards and will likely exceed 15 feet in height. (Exhibit 2).
Page 4 of 7
Point Edwards Landscape Modification
File Number: PLN20100022
C. The proposal call for the shrubs to be planted in clusters of nine, by species, in
selected areas of the slope (Exhibit 5).
D. The direction from the ADB was to provide an alternate plan that would provide a
level of density similar to that approved in the original plan, maintain the integrity
of the hillside and protect the view of the property owners above (Exhibit 2).
E. While Proposal One does not include the planting of any trees on the slope west
of Buildings 6 and 7, the proposal does replace the trees with shrubs at a ratio
three to one.
F. The Western Garden Book indicates that snowberry is used for erosion control on
steep banks (Exhibit 17) and that redtwig dogwood is good for holding banks
(Exhibit 15).
G. Given the proposed planting locations of the shrubs on the slope and the heights
of the shrubs at maturity, it does not appear that Proposal One would affect the
views of residents in Point Edwards.
4. Point Edwards LLC — Proposal Two
A. Proposal Two calls for shifting the location of some of the tress to the SW corner
of the property, switching one of the tree species from serviceberry (Amelanchier
alnifolia) to a dwarf variety of serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia `Regent
dwarf'). Remaining trees not planted will be replaced at a ratio of roughly three
to one with the same shrubs identified in Proposal One. Additionally, the trees on
the south side of Building 7 along the fence and property line will be replaced as
indicated in the letter and highlighted on the plans by Bruce Moe (Exhibits 3 - 4).
B. A comparison of the number and growth characteristics of the species from the
approved plan and Proposal Two for the sloped area is detailed in the Table 2
below.
Table 2: Comparison of approved landscape plan and modified landscape plan
Proposal Two.
Species
Number
Height'
Trees not planted as approved by building ermit BLD20060774 - 775
Serviceberry
7
20 feet
Staghorn sumac
35
15 feet
Revision Proposal One
Service Berry `Regent
dwarf
8
4-6 feet
Staghorn sumac
14
15 feet
Redtwig dogwood
58
7 — 9 feet
Oregon grape
20
6 feet
Common snowberry
9
2 - 6 feet
1: Height of plant species is taken from Western Gat -den Book (Sunset Publishing Corporation
2001). See Exhibits 13 - 17.
2: The Western Garden Book indicates that staghorn sumac can sometimes grow up to 30 feet
(Exhibit 14). At the May 5, 2010 ADB meeting, Mr. Jammer testified that the sumac where
growing well at Point Edwards and will likely exceed 15 feet in height (Exhibit 2).
Page 5 of 7
Point Edwards Landscape Modification
File Number: PLN20100022
C. As indicated above, the direction from the ADB was to provide an alternate plan
that would provide a level of density similar to that approved in the original plan,
maintain the integrity of the hillside and protect the view of the property owners
above (Exhibit 2).
D. Proposal Two proposes to shift the location of some of the trees to the southwest
corner of the property and replace trees with shrubs at a ratio of slightly more than
three to one.
E. Retaining some of the trees and replacing trees with shrubs that can offer both
erosion control and bank stability as indicated in IX.3.F above should provide
stability for the slope.
F. Shifting the staghorn sumac to the southwest corner of the property, replacing the
serviceberry with a dwarf variety, and replacing the remaining trees with shrubs
should protect the views of Point Edwards' residents.
5. Conclusions
A. Staff feels that both Proposal One and Proposal Two address the concerns raised
by the ADB at the May 5, 2010 meeting that a revised landscape plan should
provide a similar density to that approved in the original plan, maintain the
integrity of the hillside and protect the views of Point Edwards' residents.
B. Proposal One replaces all of the trees with shrubs, while Proposal Two retains at
least some trees in the original landscape plans approved by the ADB under
ADB-02-226 and the landscape plans approved with building permits
BLD20060774 and BLD20060775.
C. Staff feels that Proposal Two is more consistent with the approved landscape
plans and will provide slope stability while protecting the views of Point
Edwards' residents.
X. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the analysis and attachments to this report, staff recommends APPROVAL of
the landscape modification for Buildings 6 and 7 of the Point Edwards development as
detailed in Proposal Two (Exhibit 6).
XI. EXHIBITS:
1. Staff Report to ADB
2. Draft May 5, 2010 ADB minutes
3. Applicant's Statement — Bruce Moe, Point Edwards LLC
4. Point Edwards LLC Landscape Plan
5. Landscape modification Proposal One
6. Landscape modification Proposal Two
7. Zoning and Vicinity Map
8. Engineering Division Comments
9. ADB-02-226 approval
10. Landscape Plans approved with permits BLD20060774 and BLD20060775
Page 6 of 7
Point Edwards Landscape Modification
File Number: PLN20100022
11. Photo of slope area west of Building 6
12. Photos of slope area west of Building 7
13. Serviceberry information from Western Garden Book
14. Staghorn sumac information from Western Garden Book
15. Redtwig dogwood information from Western Garden Book
16. Oregon grape information from Western Garden Book
17. Common snowberry information from Western Garden Book
XII. PARTIES OF RECORD:
Point Edwards Homeowners Association
85 Pine Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
Bruce Moe
Point Edwards LLC
2801 Alaskan Way #107
Seattle, WA 98121
Forrest Jammer
Thomas Rengstorf Associates
911 Western Avenue, Suite 202
Seattle, WA 98104
Zack McInelly
DG Landcare Services
PO Box 3493
Bellevue, WA 98009
Planning Division
Engineering Division
Page 7 of 7
CITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEETING
May 5, 2010
Board Member Kendall called the May 5, 2010 meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., in the
City Council Chambers, 250 - 5 h Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Board Members Present
Valerie Kendall, Chair
Rick Schaefer, Vice Chair
Lois Broadway
Steve Bullock
Bryan Gootee
Michael Mestres
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Board Members Absent Staff Present
Bruce O'Neill Kernan Lien, Planner
BOARD MEMBER BULLOCK MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 21, 2010 BE APPROVED AS
SUBMITTED. VICE CHAIR SCHAEFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The Board added a discussion about sign area calculation to their agenda. The remainder of the agenda was accepted as
presented.
REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE:
No members of the audience expressed a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA:
There were no items on the consent agenda.
MINOR PROJECTS:
Landscape Modifications for Point Edwards, Located at 85 Pine Street and Zoned Master Plan Hillside Mixed
Use (MP-1).
Mr. Lien explained that the application is for two separate landscape modification requests. The Board agreed it would
be appropriate to consider each of the requests independently. Mr. Lien advised that the homeowners association (HOA)
recently assumed maintenance of the site. He recalled that the ADB approved the landscape plan in 2002, and indicated
that any major changes to the plan should come back to them for approval. Staff considered both of the changes
significant enough to require additional ADB review and approval.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
May 5, 2W9
Page 1 of 9
Exhibit 2
Homeowners Association's (HOA) Reauest to remove a species from the landscape without replacement.
Mr. Lien advised that the HOA is proposing to remove all the English Laurel from the landscaping without providing a
replacement species. He noted that the approved landscape plan called for Schipka Laurel, but English Laurel was
planted. English Laurel is a more aggressive variety of Laurel that requires more maintenance. The landscaping has
now matured, and the area is filling. Therefore, the applicant does not feel a replacement for the English Laurel is
necessary.
Mr. Lien said it is staff s belief that removing the English Laurel from the site would not take away from the quality of
the landscaping. He referred to photographs provided in the Staff Report (Exhibit 15). He summarized that the first two
pictures show places where the English Laurels tuck within the landscaping that is underneath the trees and other bushes.
The landscaping has filled in nicely. The next two pictures illustrate areas where the English Laurel is out in the open
and would be missed more than in other locations. He referred to the site plan submitted by the HMO, which highlights
some but not all of the English Laurel. He emphasized it is their intent to remove all of this species, and not just those
that are highlighted. He summarized that, in general, staff is supportive of the HOA's request.
Board Member Mestres questioned why English Laurel was planted instead of the Schipka Laurel that was identified in
the landscape plan. Mr. Lien said it may have had to do with availability.
Chair Kendall asked if staff is concerned that the current request is to remove all of the English Laurel, when only some
of the species is identified for removal on the site plan. Mr. Lien said he contacted the applicant and confirmed that they
are requesting to remove all the English Laurel except for around the utility boxes.
Brian Collins, D.G Landcare Services, Bellevue, explained that the English Laurel is the most vigorous plant on the
property. In looking at how many were planted, the amount of maintenance hours required, and how filled out the
landscape was, they determined it would be much easier to remove them rather than keep them at their current level.
With the exception of the utility areas, they have been kept at about 4 to 5 feet. Considering these are the regular English
Laurel and not the Schipka Laurel, they can grow up to 25 or 30 feet tall, or about 2 feet per year. They are
recommending the species be removed to reduce the amount of maintenance hours required for the property.
Board Member Broadway asked if any areas would be inadequately landscaped if all the English Laurel were removed.
Mr. Collins answered no. He explained that, currently, there are 10 to 15 different species of plants. He estimated the
existing landscaping would fill in the areas where the Laurel is removed within 2 to 3 years.
Vice Chair Schaefer referred to Picture 3 in Exhibit 15 and observed that the existing ground cover would eventually fill
the holes left if the Laurel were removed. However, a number of the Laurel shrubs provide screening from the street.
Removing the Laurel would add a bit more mass to the appearance of the building. He asked if another species could be
planted in these situations. Mr. Collins agreed that this bed is almost entirely ground cover at this time. He advised that
in the fall, they plan to transplant a species of Yew in this location. This species grows rapidly, but the height would be
about the same as the existing English Laurel. Also, in this particular area, the Dogwood trees are stressed out due to
improper planting and perhaps fungal diseases. They will likely need to be removed and replaced with something else,
as well. Vice Chair Schaefer asked if the health of the trees has anything to do with the slope in the location where they
were planted. Mr. Collins observed that with many of the trees planted on the property, the crown had been buried, but
the cage surrounding the roots had not been removed. He noted there are many sloped landscape areas at Point Edwards.
Chair Kendall clarified that the applicant is not proposing to add any additional landscaping, but they might redistribute
some of the existing landscaping. Mr. Collins concurred.
BOARD MEMBER BULLOCK MOVED THE BOARD APPROVE ITEM 1 OF FILE NUMBER
PLN20100022 (ELIMINATION OF THE ENGLISH LAUREL). ALL ENGLISH LAUREL IN THE PLAN
Architectural Design Board Meeting
May 5, 2009
Page 2 of 9
Exhibit 2
MAY BE ELIMINATED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE AROUND UTILITY FEATURES AND
THOSE USED FOR SCREENING. IN AREAS WHERE THERE ARE NO LARGE SHRUBS, THE
APPLICANT WILL RELOCATE OTHER SHRUBS TO THOSE SITES. BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY
SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Point Edwards LLC request for Modification for Release of Maintenance Bond
Mr. Lien explained that upon inspection of landscaping for Buildings 6 and 7 for the release of a landscape maintenance
bond, City staff determined that large portions of the approved landscaping appeared to be missing. This is particularly
the case on the view side of the buildings where Serviceberry and Staghorn Sumac trees were supposed to be planted
according to the approved landscape plan. He advised that Bruce Moe of Point Edwards LLC indicated the trees on the
view side were not planted in an effort to protect views, and revisions to the landscape plan were approved by the
landscape architect and the City of Edmonds Planning Division. However, the approved landscape plans on file with the
City of Edmonds (Exhibits 6, 8, 11, 16 and 17) show the trees are to be planted. The City has no other documentation of
an approved plan that identifies these areas not being planted with trees. The location where the Serviceberry and
Staghorn Sumac trees were to be planted according the approved landscape plans is located on the hillside below the
lawn areas of Buildings 6 and 7.
According to the Western Garden Book, Serviceberry trees grow to about 20 feet high, and Staghom Sumac Trees grow
to approximately 15 feet. Given the location of the trees at maturity, it is staff s opinion that the trees would not likely
impact views significantly. Point Edwards LLC has indicated they would replant along the southern boundary.
However, they do not wish to plant trees along the view area. Given that this was a significant change, staff felt it would
be appropriate for additional ADB review. With the proposed location and mature height of the trees, staff does not
believe they will impact views. Therefore, staff recommends the applicant be required to plant the trees before the
maintenance bond can be released.
Board Member Gootee asked if lawn associated with Building 7 goes straight out from the bottom floor. Mr. Lien said
the topography of the lawn areas in front of Buildings 6 and 7 is nearly level. Board Member Gootee observed that the
shelf is approximately 10 feet below the height of the lawn area.
Board Member Gootee referred to Exhibit 7 in which the applicant points out that the City's Planning Department staff
inspected the site and signed off on the revision that eliminated the trees in front of Buildings 6 and 7. Mr. Lien said the
applicant indicated in their cover letter that the decision was made on site with the landscape architect, the builder and
City staff. However, the landscape architect has indicated that City staff was not part of that decision, and there are no
plans on file with the City that showed revised landscaping for these areas. He said there is no documentation that a
revision was approved as part of the Certificate of Occupancy.
Board Member Broadway asked if anything was planted on the site in lieu of the trees. Mr. Lien answered that ground
cover has been planted in this area, but no shrubs. Some smaller shrubs were planted at the corner of Building 6, but
they are also identified in the landscape plan.
Board Member Mestres asked if the trees identified in the original landscape plan were intended to replace trees that had
been removed as part of previous site clearing. Mr. Lien referred to Item L1.0 of Exhibit 16, which identifies the trees
that were removed to accommodate the development. Item L1.3 of Exhibit 16 is the landscape plan that was approved
by the ADB. His understanding is that the trees were intended to be replacement trees to re -vegetate the site.
Vice Chair Schaefer referred to L1.0 of Exhibit 16 and said it appears the heavy dashed line was to be the prescribed
clearing line. Mr. Lien said Exhibit 16 is the initial plan that was submitted as part of the application. Exhibit 11
contains the approved plans. Mr. Bullock recalled that the developer was required to replant trees on the bank.
However, this was completely separate from the approved landscape plans for the individual buildings. This
requirement addressed the trees that were removed as part of the initial clearing of the site. He suggested the tree
Architectural Design Board Meeting
May 5, 2W9
Page 3 of 9
Exhibit 2
replacement requirement should not have a significant bearing on whatever the ADB decides to do with the required
trees associated with the construction of individual buildings.
Forrest Jammer, Thomas Rengstorf and Associates, Seattle, advised that his company is the landscape architect for
the project. He referred to Item L1.0 in Exhibit 16, which is the legend showing which trees could be removed. The
limit line (dashed line) is an approximation. Items L1.2 and L1.3 of Exhibit 16 identify the landscaping that was
proposed for the entire area up to the limit line. Most of the trees and shrubs on the plan are necessary for the area as part
of the deal for allowing the trees to be cleared. The developer spent a substantial amount of money to revegetate the
hillside. He said he walked the site today and found that most of the plants and trees in this area are doing well and will
eventually grow larger.
Board Member Bullock said it is important to understand that a landscape plan is submitted when a project comes to the
ADB for review early in the project design phase. After ADB approval, the applicant continues to develop construction
documents, which are submitted and reviewed by City staff at the building permit stage. It is not uncommon for
landscape plans to evolve to a certain degree after ADB approval. At the building permit stage, it is staff s responsibility
to determine if the landscape plan submitted with the building permit is still roughly consistent with what the ADB
originally approved. If staff determines it is not consistent, the applicant must either change the plan or present a new
proposal to the ADB. The same thing happens at the construction stage. What gets built often evolves from the
landscape plans approved with the building permit. This results in a project that is two plans removed from when the
ADB initially reviewed the application. Once a project has been completed, the Planning Division staff inspects the site
to determine if the finished product is the same as what was approved as part of the building permit.
Board Member Bullock said he conducted many inspections of the site as part of the City's Planning Division, but he left
the employ of the City by the time they got to Buildings 6 and 7. He said he may have reviewed the building permits for
the two buildings, but he did not conduct any inspections. Mr. Lien referred to Exhibit 11, which are the plans that were
approved as part of the building permit. He noted that staff signed off on the plans on January 25, 2007, which was
several years after the other buildings were constructed. Board Member Bullock summarized that Exhibit 11 is the plan
that was approved by the Planning Division staff as being conceptually consistent with ADB approval. It shows both a
lawn and some trees. In addition, someone from the Planning Division should have inspected the site and signed off on
the performance bond before the Certificate of Occupancy could be issued. Mr. Lien explained that, apparently, it was
policy at one time that a performance bond was not needed as long as the landscaping was installed. Buildings 6 and 7
were reviewed, but he cannot find any documentation of the review. Board Member Bullock said someone from the
Planning Division should have signed off on a form that went back to the Building Division indicating they were okay
with what was installed.
Board Member Mestres observed that it would be difficult for the Board to make a judgment based on the information
provided in the staff report. He suggested it would be helpful to have some more recent images to illustrate the existing
situation. If the existing landscaping has grown into a suitable replacement, the ADB could take that into consideration.
Mr. Lien referred to Exhibit 11, which contains the landscape plans that were approved in 2007. The other tree situation
related to the hillside took place in 2003 or 2004. The dashed line along the edge in Exhibit 11 identifies the location
where the hillside drops dramatically. This is the area where trees were planted as mitigation for the trees that were
removed. No trees have been planted within the bench area.
Vice Chair Schaefer said he visited the site and noted that the road sits above the landscape area. The proposed plantings
can be seen from the edge of the property and looking between Buildings 5 and 6. As he looked down, from above, he
could see the very top of one evergreen tree that was located on the slope. With the drop off, he does not anticipate a
view issue with trees that grow 15 to 20 feet tall. Without having any documentation or history to support the proposed
change, he said he does not see a reason to modify the landscape plan that was approved by the ADB in 2002. He felt it
was legitimate to require the applicant to establish a healthy root structure at the top of the slope, which would be
accomplished with plantings as identified in the landscaping plan that was previously approved by the ADB. Board
Member Bullock concurred. Neither of the proposed trees (Serviceberry and Staghorn Sumac) would grow tall, but their
Architectural Design Board Meeting
May 5, 2009
Page 4 of 9
Exhibit 2
root structure would add stability to the slope. The proposed planting locations would still accommodate a significant
view corridor, and the trees would be planted down slope from the units. He does not see any reason to alter the plan.
Board Member Gootee pointed out that it is staff's responsibility to see that projects are constructed as per approved
plans. If a project is not built per the plan, the applicant must resubmit an application and go through the process again.
Mr. Lien said staff inspected the site and determined that the landscape area must either be replanted or the applicant
must approach the ADB with a request for a landscape modification. The applicant chose to approach the ADB with
their proposed change. It was staff s interpretation that the proposed modification was significant enough to warrant
ADB review and approval.
Board Member Bullock summarized that the applicant is asking the ADB to approve a change to their plan that would
not require them to plant trees on the hillside as called out in the currently approved plan. The ADB has the ability to
accept the proposal or not. Vice Chair Schaefer pointed out that the ADB's approval of the proposal included the
condition that "all tree clearing and replanting shall comply with the submitted arborist report and final landscape plan."
The applicant is asking that the plan be modified to be consistent with the current situation on site.
Board Member Gootee expressed concern that the trees identified in the landscape plan could potentially block the view
of the condominium owners. He said he would be willing to consider a resubmittal for a different type of species that
would protect the existing view. Mr. Jammer advised that Staghorn Sumac has the ability to grow up to 30 feet, and the
site has proven to be a very enjoyable location for this species. Board Member Bullock said that is assuming no
maintenance is done on the trees. \
Brian Collins, D.G Landcare Services, Bellevue, said that in the past, previous landscape companies have sheared the
plants on the property, and the HMO and his company are using a more naturalistic approach of letting things grow to a
mature height. In addition, he noted that pruning trees actually encourages growth. He pointed out that the Staghorn
Sumac species can grow fairly tall. He noted that the slope starts at the same level as the lawn, and over the course of
about 30 feet going west, it drops down 10 feet. The Serviceberry species are proposed to be planted at the same level as
the lawn. While the Board may think the mature height of both of the proposed species would not impede views;
according to the landscape plans, they would be planted at the same level as the lawns and then grow 15 to 25 feet tall.
This would ultimately block the entire first floor of both of the buildings, and possibly the second story, as well. Vice
Chair Schaefer pointed out there is a drop from the building, so the trees would not be planted at the same level as the
first floor. Mr. Collins pointed out that the lawn was expanded further out than shown on the plan. The bench drops off
at slope of 3 to 1, which is not a significant slope.
Again, Board Member Gootee suggested the applicant resubmit the proposal using alternative types of vegetation. He
said he is taking into account the potential hardship the existing plan could have on the condominium owners. He felt
that a different type of vegetation could protect the views and still maintain the character of the site.
Board Member Mestres questioned why the trees were included as part of the original landscape plan if they were not a
good choice. It is likely that the trees were proposed by the landscape architect. Mr. Jammer explained that owners of
Point Edwards at the time were concerned about being able to market the units, and they wanted to maintain a passive
view into the future. As much as possible, they avoided landscaping that would limit the view of the water. However,
the re -vegetation plan required them to address certain areas of the site. He said the proposed tree species have been
used in other locations on the site, but there is concern that they could grow to block the views from the condominiums.
He suggested that the trees be shifted to another portion of the site in the general area (south of Building 7) that is
currently being irrigated. At this time, the slope area has not been properly irrigated. Adding more irrigation to the
slopes would place an additional burden on the HMO.
Chair Kendall asked if the developer or the HMO would be responsible for planting the trees as per the approved
landscape plan. Mr. Lien said it would be the developer's responsibility in order to receive their maintenance bond. The
HMO would not be responsible for the plantings.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
May 5, 2009
Page 5 of 9
Exhibit 2
Vice Chair Schaefer pointed out that, as proposed, the trees would be planted at various locations, and the taller of the
two species would be located further down the slope. He pointed out that an uninterrupted view was never implied by
the landscape plan. While he recognizes the homeowners might not have known that trees were supposed to be planted
on the hillside, that is not something the Board can consider. He said he does not see the proposed modification as being
functionally equivalent to what was originally approved. He suggested the applicant submit an alternative plan that
would result in an equal root structure at the edge of the sensitive area. He said he would consider a proposal for a
different species that would perform equally well but impact the homeowners less. However, modifying the plan to
eliminate all of the trees in this location would not be appropriate.
Board Member Mestres expressed concern about the Board getting too much into the concept of views. If they are going
to accept a certain amount of responsibility for the views of the residents at Point Edwards, they must also consider the
views for the people who are down hill. He suggested it is likely the original landscape plan was intended to address the
views from below the subject property, as well. Perhaps the trees were originally proposed to satisfy everyone's view.
Board Member Bullock said that, as someone who used to inspect projects and sign off on building permits,
performance bonds and certificates of occupancy, he allowed for some minor relocation of trees as long as tree counts
were maintained and as long as the general landscape design was followed. He said he would be opposed to allowing
the applicant to jam all of the trees onto the narrow strip to the south of Building 7. This would not be consistent with
the design concept of the original landscape plan, and it is not something that should or would have been allowed. He
expressed his belief that there are good reasons for having the trees in the locations identified in the plan. If the location
of the lawn was changed, it should not be the ADB's responsibility to fix the situation.
Chair Kendall said it appears the Board concurs that trees of some sort should be planted in the original locations
identified on the plan. She explained that the Board could take action on the current request or ask the applicant to come
back with an alternative plan. Again, Board Member Gootee expressed his belief that there are other solutions, but this
type of change would require an alternate proposal that would maintain the integrity of the hillside and protect the view
of the property owners above. Chair Kendall said she is not concerned that there is currently no irrigation on the hillside.
She observed that it was the developer's responsibility to plant trees in this location, so they must also provide irrigation.
Board Member Bullock asked if the applicant would have the ability to submit an alternate proposal to the City within
the next two weeks so it could be scheduled on the ADB's June 2nd agenda. Mr. Jammer answered affirmatively. Board
Member Bullock said it would be helpful to have some section drawings, particularly if the applicant is trying to make a
case that the grades are different than what is shown on the landscape plan. Board Member Mestres said it would also be
helpful to provide images to illustrate the existing conditions. For example, if there are already pine trees and other
vegetation in the area to soften the impact, images could help support their case.
VICE CHAIR SCHAEFER MOVED THAT THE BOARD DENY THE REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION
TO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR BUILDINGS 6 AND 7 (ITEM 2 OF FILE NUMBER PLN20100022).
Board Member Bullock suggested that rather than deny the application at this time, the Board could continue the item to
the next meeting to allow the applicant an opportunity to submit an alternate proposal. Vice Chair Schaefer expressed
his belief that it would be better to deny the proposal, anticipating the applicant would submit an alternate proposal. Mr.
Lien pointed out that if the application is denied, the applicant would be required to pay a new application fee to submit
an alternate proposal. If the current proposal is carried forward, no new application fee would be required.
VICE CHAIR SCHAEFER WITHDREW HIS MOTION.
BOARD MEMBER BULLOCK MOVED THAT THE BOARD CONTINUE THEIR REVIEW OF ITEM 2
OF FILE NUMBER PLN20100022 TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TIME TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL
Architectural Design Board Meeting
May 5, 2009
Page 6 of 9
Exhibit 2
MATERIALS SHOWING AN ALTERNATE PROPOSAL. BOARD MEMBER MESTRES SECONDED
THE MOTION.
Board Member Broadway said it is important to keep in mind that the intent of the current landscape plan that was
approved in 2002 was to create a level of density in landscaping and to stabilize the slope. She said she would like the
alternative proposal to address both of these intents. The type of tree seems irrelevant as long the slope is stabilized. She
said she would be more comfortable accepting a different species as long as the density and environmental component
are maintained. Board Member Gootee expressed his belief that there are alternative species that would meet the two
objectives noted by Board Member Broadway while protecting views at the same time.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - MAJOR PROJECTS:
No public hearings were scheduled on the agenda.
CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation):
No consolidated hearings were scheduled on the agenda.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
Review of Citv's Current Method for Calculating Sign Area
Mr. Lien recalled that at their last meeting, the Board had a discussion about what part of a monument sign would be
included in the total sign area calculation. He reviewed that because monument signs are freestanding signs that have
integrated the structural components of the sign into the design of the sign and sign face, staff initially thought the whole
monument sign should be included in the sign area. At the request of the Board, he reviewed the code language again,
focusing on the monument sign definition, which differentiates between the sign base and supporting structures that are
part of the sign display. He observed that the definition is easy to apply to a monument sign that is set on top of a base,
and it is clear that only the sign should be counted as part of the sign area. However, not all monument signs are
constructed in this fashion. To address the various types of monument signs, he focused on the differentiation called out
in the monument sign definition between the sign design and the sign base. He also focused on the sign area definition,
which talks about the display area. He concluded that the sign display area is just that portion of the sign that carries the
message. He reviewed the various examples he provided to illustrate how this new interpretation would be applied.
Mr. Lien advised that if the ADB agrees, staff would prepare a formal interpretation for how sign area is calculated for
monument signs. The sign code could then be amended to address specific situations. He pointed out that the structural
part of a monument sign and the wail around it would still be subject to ADB review, but questions regarding the
maximum sign area allowed would be clarified.
Board Member Broadway challenged staff to come up with definitions and limits for the following elements of a
monument sign: sign base, display area and sign frame. Vice Chair Schaefer suggested that the anything below the
lowest point on the display area should be defined as the sign base. Anything above should be considered part of the
sign area. The frame portion of the sign could be considered part of the sign area, similar to a cabinet sign.
Mr. Lien referred to Example 35, which has no base, and the supporting structures are all located above. Board Member
Broadway pointed out that having three definitions, as she recommended earlier, would address all situations. A sign
would be allowed as long as it does not exceed the cumulative maximums identified for sign base, display area and sign
frame. Chair Kendall summarized that this approach would allow a sign to have a smaller display area and a larger
frame.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
May 5, 2009
Page 7 of 9
Exhibit 2
Board Member Gootee said he works for a company that applies for sign permits quite often, and in most jurisdictions,
all portions of a sign above the finished ground elevation are counted as part of the total sign area. This simplifies the
issue. He noted that most companies want to maximize their allowed signage. If the City maintains their current height
limits, companies will want to maximize their square footage massing as much as possible. If the City only counts the
display as part of the maximum sign area, a company would be allowed to have a small logo with a large brick structure
in order to maximize the size of the overall sign. He suggested they keep the code language simple.
Board Member Bullock said he has dealt with a lot of different jurisdictions about signage, and many include the base as
part of the overall sign area. He observed that, oftentimes, businesses are seeking a permit for a simple cabinet sign with
a rock base, and the proposed interpretation would open opportunities for them to consider other options. He said he
would support staff putting together an interpretation as explained by Mr. Lien. However, he expressed concern about
moving to the next step of code amendments. He said his experience is that Edmonds is quite restrictive about the
amount of sign area they allow. He observed that the more complex the sign code, the more difficult it will be for people
to understand. Simple is better. While he sees some value to breaking it into three parts (base, sign area, frame), he also
supports a simpler approach. He referred to the example of a large stone fence that is placed at the entrance to a
neighborhood with a sign to identify the neighborhood. He asked if the entire fence would be considered part of the sign
base or frame. Board Member Broadway suggested that if the City identifies a maximum aggregate area for monument
signs, applicants could break the sign area up any way they want to.
Board Member Mestres noted that the Board has never reviewed a sign application that included a small display area and
a large base. He said he does not believe that sign designers would propose this type of design because the display area
needs to be the focal point of the sign. If an applicant does propose a design of this type, the Board would have the
ability to deny the application because the massing is inappropriate. Board Member Gootee agreed but suggested the
simpler the sign code, the harder it will be for applicants to get around the requirements.
Mr. Lien referred to Board Member Broadway's suggestion that the City establish a maximum sign area and require
applicants to work within that sign area. He observed that is basically what is in the current code, and his interpretation
two weeks ago was that the structural part is part of the sign and should be included in the sign area. If the Board wants
to go that direction, the interpretation should state that the entire monument sign above finished grade is included in the
sign area. Board Member Broadway said there needs to be an aggregate total area, but only the display area should be
included as part of the actual sign area.
Board Member Bullock recalled that when an applicant submits an application for a wall sign that uses individual letters,
the code allows staff to draw a box around the letters to calculate the total sign area. However, the applicant also has the
ability to submit the area calculation for each letter. This provision is intended to encourage applicants to do better
quality signage in exchange for little more sign area. This same concept could apply to monument signs, as well. As a
staff person, he would want to have the ability to calculate total sign area by drawing the smallest rectangle around what
is considered the sign area.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBERS COMMENTS:
Board Member Mestres reminded the Board that it is not within their purview to consider cost and undue hardships
associated with an application. Chair Kendall agreed and said that is why she brought up the fact that the Board's
decision should not be based on whether there is irrigation on the hillside or not.
Board Mestres also reminded the Board that it is outside of their purview to make decisions based on view. Chair
Kendall agreed that the issue of view is between the developer and the individual condominium owners. The purpose of
her comment was to establish whether trees that should have been planted per the plan were intentionally not planted to
give potential buyers the appearance of a view they may not have. She said Vice Chair Schaefer's point was very well
taken that a view is still a view, even if there is some filtration through the trees. A view is also what you see when you
Architectural Design Board Meeting
May 5, 2009
Page 8 of 9
Exhibit 2
look up on the project from below. Again Board Member Mestres expressed his belief that view is outside of the
Board's purview. Board Member Gootee slightly disagreed and suggested it is more an issue of balance. He cautioned
the Board against pushing something so strong that it becomes an extreme financial hardship for someone even if they
are right and within the law to do so. There is a balance that the Board must at least understand and be aware of,
particularly if there are other cost effective alternatives. Board Member Mestres cautioned against the Board making
decisions based on cost to an applicant.
I_\ 13 Eel" :,101u l �i►`Y W
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
May 5, 2009
Page 9 of 9
Exhibit 2
"A
City of Edmonds
Attn: Kernen Lien
121 50i Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
2801 Alaskan Way
Suite 107
Seattle, WA 98121
APR Epp
Subject: Land use Design Amendment
Landscape Maintenance Bond Release
Mr. Lien,
Thank you for taking the time to review this project on —site and your suggestion of
partnering with the HOA for their amendment to remove plant material.
The revisions made to planting at Buildings 6 & 7 (41 & 31 Pine Street) were made with
the intent and concern to protect the home purchaser views. The revisions made, although you note
"missing landscaping" actually were completed at an addition cost of +/- $10,000. Revisions were
made under the direction of the Project Manager for Point Edwards and the Project Landscape
Architect Thomas Rengstorf & Associates. The work was later inspected and approved via site
visits from both the Landscape Architect and the City of Edmonds Planning Department and
subsequently signed off by both patties.
The elimination of "missing" plant material was made due to view corridor obstruction. As
you are aware the project owner has completed a costly re -vegetation program including planting
and inspections to provide and maintain the view corridor. To compensate for the removal of the
plants noted, a considerable amount of expense was undertaken on:
® Page 1
A. Additional lawn area was planted on the view side as the result of increased
square footage at the completion of grading.
B. Similar to the previously constructed buildings, additional Emerald Greens were
planted along the street and pathways.
C. Emerald Greens noted on the landscape plans to be 36" were sized up to 48" to
provide better immediate privacy screening.
D. Lattice and plant materials were added on private patios to screen expansive
concrete retaining walls.
Exhibit 3
E. Some trees noted missing at the South exit from Building 7 were in fact planted
to the East as the rockery and concrete walks would not allow for the specified
material at the location. Additional material was planted at the exit location
which would better fit the space allowed.
As was evidenced by our tour and the joint application being made, this project is not
lacking for plant materials. The co -applicant in fact is asking for some plant removal.
The only issue I noted was the lack of some material along the Woodway/Point Edwards
property line fence. There is missing material there that I have no explanation for.
That material may have been removed when the fence was installed. We would be more
then happy to install that material and additional along the property line.
Thank you for your consideration and understanding in this matter.
S�ycet ely,
,Bruce Moe. ---- -
® Page 2
Exhibit 3