2015-07-01 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Minutes of Regular Meeting
July 1, 2016
Chair Gootee called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers,
250 - 5dh Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington.
Board Members Present
Bryan Gootee, Chair
Cary Guenther, Vice Chair
Brian Borofka
Lois Broadway
Bruce O'Neill
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Board Members Absent Staff Present
Tom Walker Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
BOARD MEMBER BOROFKA MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 20, 2015 BE APPROVED AS
SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
t11L,"Ll1 U/_[Illjy
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
BOARD MEMBER O'NEILL MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD
MEMBER BOROFKA SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE:
Scott Blumenkamp, Edmonds, recognized that the Board does not have the ability to address his situation, but he
wanted to inform them of the impact of their decisions and the fact that the City administration does not enforce them.
He explained that on February 5, 2015 the Architectural Design Board approved a development at 22320 Edmonds
Way. The Staff Report that was prepared for the hearing left out some critical information. For example, the Staff
Report stated that the applicant met all of the applicable code requirements. If Board had visited the site, they would not
have missed four trees (one 160 feet tall and 42 inches in diameter) on his property within two feet of the property line
that would be affected by the proposal. The plan called for minimal excavation. While he is not sure of the City's
definition of "minimal," 130 square yards of excavation on a less than half acre lot seems more than minimal. The
applicant needed to excavate in order to fit five, 3-story duplexes into the 25-foot height restriction. A retaining wall is
being constructed within the drip line of the trees on his property, and the excavation has destroyed three of the trees and
completely changed the character of his property.
Mr. Blumenkamp said he purchased his property on May 12, 2015 and moved in on May 23rd. Within a week, the
character of his property was destroyed. He spoke with the City administration and brought up the fact that the City has
a very clear tree cutting code, which very clearly prohibits excavation to a lower level within 1-foot for every inch of the
tree. City staff told him they did not have to abide by this code provision, and the applicant was allowed to excavate
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
July 1, 2015
Page 1 of 4
within two feet of the trees. Two arborist reports, one from the City and one from the developer, showed that the trees
are now hazardous. Furthermore, the Staff Report clearly says a Type I Landscape buffer is required his property, which
is zoned single-family residential and the property being developed, which is zoned multi -family residential. The
Architectural Design Board accepted the Staff Report's claim that the trees on his and his adjoining neighbor's properties
were the Type I Landscape buffer, but the buffer no longer exists. The City has indicated the developer now is offering
$200 per tree to somehow create a buffer.
Mr. Blumenkamp reviewed that on July 5, 2004 the City Council enacted the code amendment to create a procedural
exemption, which completely makes sense. Specifically, the Planning Division Manager indicated that the amendment
would only apply to the process, and every developer must still abide by the actual standards of ECDC 18.45.50.
However, this is an example of what happens when the Architectural Design Board has become completely irrelevant
because the administration is not enforcing what they say. He said he is incredulous that this situation was allowed to
happen; and he is now looking at $50,000 damage, not counting removal of the trees and the fact that there is no longer a
buffer. He emphasized the need for the City to enforce the codes, as written; and the Architectural Design Board needs
to pay careful attention to how staff presents proposals to them to ensure they are accurate.
Chair Gootee asked if this is the property adjacent to the new veterinary building that is being prepared for development
as condominiums. Mr. Blumenkamp answered affirmatively. Chair Gootee summarized that, in Mr. Blumenkamp's
opinion, some of the Architectural Design Board's findings are not being abided by on the property. Mr. Blumenkamp
expressed his belief that the staff's presentation to the Board was inaccurate and untrue. He does not believe that most
people would think "excavation" includes digging down five feet at the property line and taking out 1,100 square yards
of material. One of the conditions of the Board's approval is that the project would follow all codes. In the Board's
hearing regarding the application, a Board Member asked why more trees were not retained. As per the Staff Report, the
minimal excavation was to fill a hole next to the house, but the entire lot has now been graded and every tree removed.
He voiced concern that the developer had to dig down in order to fit 3-story condos into a zone that restricts height to 25
feet. This required him to construct a retaining wall approximately three feet from the property line, which ended up
destroying the trees on his property and eliminating the required Type I Landscape Buffer. This buffer was discussed in
the Staff Report and the mature trees on adjacent properties were referred to in the hearing notes. The developer will put
up a fence, but that is all. Anything he can do will not replace a 120-year-old Douglas fir.
Chair Gootee commented that Mr. Blumenkamp's situation appears to be an enforcement problem, which is not
something the Architectural Design Board can address at this time. He agreed that the Architectural Design Board has
had problems in the past when the conditions attached to their decisions have not been enforced or have been changed.
He asked Mr. Clugston to explain the process Mr. Blumenkamp should use to pursue his concerns. Mr. Clugston said
there is a larger discussion going on regarding the project referenced by Mr. Blumenkamp. He reminded the Board that
the City is pursuing a large Development Code rewrite, and one of the goals is to streamline the processes and make it
clearer.
Mr. Blumenkamp emphasized that the codes relative to tree clearing are very clear. First of all, the department head is
responsible for administrating and enforcing the code. Next, it says a permit will be required of every tree clearing. It
also provides a list of exemptions and addresses hazardous tree removal. Third, the code includes a procedural
exemption that is very clear: exempt from application and notification. Part B of this same provision (ECDC 18.45.35)
states that Architectural Design Board approval will be in accordance with this chapter. If not, then reparations will be in
accordance with the chapter. Then it goes into how you deal with things. If you are within the drip line of a tree (ECDC
18.45.750.H) excavation is limited to one foot for every inch, and you cannot do heavy equipment, stack materials or
excavate within the drip line of a tree. It does not say any tree on the property being developed; it says any tree to be
retained. The code cannot be clearer, and he is tired of hearing from staff that the Tree Code is unclear.
Mr. Blumenkamp said he received a letter from the Planning Division indicating that the applicant is abiding by the
permit. However, the City should not be allowed to issue permits that are inconsistent with the code. If an applicant
wants to depart from the code provisions, a variance should be required. In his opinion, the Architectural Design Board
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
July 1, 2015
Page 2 of 4
needs to carefully review the information they receive and what they are being told by the staff. If there are issues, the
Board's decisions should include very clear criteria to address them. Right now, his only option is to go to court, which
will cost money.
Chair Gootee commented that the Board will take Mr. Blumenkamp's comments under advisement. The Board does try
to make their findings as clear as possible.
CONSENT AGENDA:
There were no items on the consent agenda.
MINOR PROJECTS:
No minor projects were scheduled on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - MAJOR PROJECTS: Architectural Design Board review of the design of a new mixed -
use building at 201 Main Street for Edmonds 2020 LLC (File Number PLN20150016) (Continued from May 20,
2015
Mr. Clugston reviewed that at their May 20th meeting, the Board took testimony on Phase 1 of the public hearing for a
new building at the Post Office Site. They established the design checklist and set a date certain for Phase 2 of the public
hearing, which was tonight. Unfortunately, the applicant has not turned in the materials required for the continued
hearing.
Mr. Clugston explained that, because the public hearing for the application is still open, the Board could invite members
of the public to testify relative to the existing information. Following any public testimony, the Board could continue
Phase 2 of the public hearing to a date certain. The applicant has indicated that the required materials will be submitted
next week, and he requested that the hearing be continued to August 5, 2015.
Doug Spee, Edmonds 2020 LLC, Edmonds, said he is the applicant for the proposed project. He reported that good
progress has been made to prepare for the Phase 2 public hearing, but additional information is still being prepared. He
reported that a landscape plan has been completed, and a civil plan is underway. They are also preparing a night
rendering of the proposed project. As challenged by the Board, they have worked to address the blank, grey wall along
the alley. One option is to cast various designs into the concrete, and another option is a 3D mural with an outdoor
theme. He summarized that the floor plan has been polished more, and some of the smaller apartments were combined
into larger units. However, the project still includes a spectrum of small to large units, with 12 on each floor. He
believes the new plan is a better fit for clients who will rent long-term. He also noted that there will be ample parking for
the project (residential and commercial) in the basement.
Board Member Borofka asked if changing the civil engineer for the project will impact the colors and materials proposed
for the building. Mr. Spee answered no. He explained that the project architect will not change, and the civil engineer
will address such things as sewer and water hookups, etc. There will be no curb cuts or aprons. There will be a simple
sidewalk on two sides of the property, with a connection on the third side and alley on the fourth side. He said the
materials proposed by the architect are intended to provide more originality but be consistent with theme of the Phase 1
Building.
Richard Eadie, Shoreline, said he owns a house on the other side of the alley from the subject property. He asked how
he could become informed about whether the hearing will go forward in August or not. Mr. Clugston answered that
notice of the continued hearing will be sent to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property on or about July
22ad (two weeks before the hearing). Mr. Edie indicated that he did not receive any of the previous notices, and Mr.
Clugston agreed to ensure he is included in the next mailing.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
July 1, 2015
Page 3 of 4
VICE CHAIR GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE PHASE 2 PUBLIC HEARING ON FILE NUMBER
PLN20150016 BE CONTINUED TO AUGUST 5, 2015. BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY SECONDED THE
MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation):
There were no consolidated permit applications.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTSATEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
Mr. Clugston invited Board Members to attend the Volunteer Appreciation Day Picnic on August 9th at 2:00 p.m. at City
Park.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS:
Mr. Clugston reported that the vacant Board positions have been advertised, but the City has not received any
applications to date.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
July 1, 2015
Page 4 of 4