Loading...
2002-12-12 Historic Preservation Commission MinutesHISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES December 12, 2002 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting of the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission was called to order at 3:37 p.m. by acting chair Chuck LeWarne in the 31 Floor Fourtner Room of City Hall, 121 — 51 Avenue North. PRESENT ABSENT Chuck LeWarne Darrell Marmion, Chair Stephen Waite Gregg Arnold, Vice Chair Ed Baker Barbara Kindness Michael Plunkett (arrived at 3:46 p.m.) 2. READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Star Campbell, Assistant Planner Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager OTHERS PRESENT Mike Wilcox, Vice President, Edmonds/South Snohomish County Historical Society Commissioner Kindness noted that at the last meeting she stated that the City of Edmonds' 103' Birthday was coming up, when it is actually their 113t1i Birthday. She also provided some typographical corrections. COMMISSIONER KINDNESS MOVED TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2002 AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER WAITE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA Commissioner LeWarne advised that after consulting with Commissioner Kindness, the presentation by the grant writer was postponed to the next meeting when more of the Commissioners would be present. This item was not included on the agenda when it was sent out, although Commissioner Kindness had understood that it would be. At the request of the Commission, Mr. Chave explained that Item 8 (Administrative Reports) was included on the agenda to allow staff to report on administrative issues that are pertinent to the Commission. 4. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE There was no one in the audience who desired to address the Commission during this portion of the meeting. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings scheduled on the agenda. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Review of Subcommittee Tasks, Priorities and Members Ms. Campbell recalled that a few meetings ago, the Chair directed that this be a standard agenda item. Commissioner LeWarne inquired if any of the Commissioners had comments to make concerning the tasks, priorities and members of the various subcommittees. None of the Commissioners had any comments to provide regarding this subject. 7. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS a. Administrative Subcommittee Report Commissioner LeWarne reported that he and Councilmember Plunkett have reviewed the proposed rules and procedures document and now have a recommendation to make to the Commission. Commissioner LeWarne said that in the current draft of the rules and procedures there are several references to the Edmonds Historic Preservation Ordinance 856. This reference needs to be changed to Ordinances 3392 and 3397. The Commission agreed to move on with the Communications Subcommittee Report while staff made copies of the rules and procedures document. b. Communications Subcommittee Report Commissioner Kindness said she spoke with a grant writer, Pat Bergsman, who has quite a lot of experience in grant writing. Ms. Bergsman suggested that the Commission tap as many local resources as possible to enable her to have greater success in obtaining more on the regional, state and national levels. Commissioner Kindness advised that Ms. Bergsman provided her with a good start on the local effort. In addition to the Hubbard Foundation, Boeing has a fund available for printing brochures for non-profit groups, but she has not had a chance to speak with anyone at Boeing about this opportunity yet. Commissioner Kindness advised that Ms. Bergsman would come before the Commission at their next meeting to present her ideas about possible funding opportunities for the Commission to consider. Commissioner Kindness reported that she was unable to do the press release for December that was intended to get the public interested in what the Commission is trying to do. She asked that the Commissioners clip any items they see in the newspapers related to the Historic Preservation Commission and forward them to her. She said that currently four newspapers are willing to print their news releases. In addition, THE ENTERPRISE has expressed an interest in having a monthly column related to the Commission's activities. C. Historic Register Subcommittee Report The Historic Register Subcommittee had nothing further to report to the Commission. d. Incentives Subcommittee Report Commissioner Waite said that he and Commissioner Arnold have been focusing on contacting many small and some larger municipalities to see what they have done or attempted to do related to incentives. They have been sifting through all of the information they have received to date, and by the next meeting they should be able to provide a more detailed report. 8. NEW BUSINESS Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 12, 2002 Page 2 Commissioner Kindness reported that someone in Edmonds has a building that has been designated on the Commission's list of historic structures. They want to move this structure to a different site, and they questioned whether the Commission would prevent them from making any kind of changes after the building was moved. Ms. Campbell said that the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission has not designated any buildings on their register to date. Commissioner LeWarne said there is only one building in Edmonds that is on the national register, and that is the Carnegie Library and Museum. If structures that are identified on the State Register are moved, it is conceivable that they would be removed from the State Register —especially if they are moved to an area that is of a totally different context. This would be determined at the State level and not by the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission. Ms. Campbell recalled that a structure cannot be nominated for the National Register if it has been moved out of its original context. Commissioner LeWarne agreed, but added that there might be some exceptions that would need to be considered on an individual basis. 9. CONTINUED SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS a. Administrative Subcommittee Reuort Mr. Chave provided copies of the draft rules and procedures document. Commissioner LeWarne first referred to the opening paragraph in Section 1 and suggested that it should be changed to identify the ordinances as 3392 and 3397. Councilmember Plunkett suggested that all of Section A should be deleted because membership has already been covered in the ordinance. Commissioner LeWarne said his thought was to leave the first sentence in to state that the Commission shall consist of seven members, and add "as specified in Ordinance 3392." Councilmember Plunkett questioned whether it would be better to substitute the membership language in the document with the exact language from the ordinance that was already approved (Chapter 10.90.020). Commissioner LeWarne said he would support this option. Ms. Campbell said that Ms. Kelly's direction to Chair Marmion was that the Commission does not have to repeat things in the bylaws that are already in the ordinance. Therefore, either of the options they are discussing would be fine. They could take the section out completely, refer back to the ordinance, or replace the section with the exact language from the ordinance. But they don't have to repeat what is already in the ordinance. If the ordinance covers membership, the Commission has the ability to take this section out of the rules and procedures document. Mr. Chave suggested that because someone might not have the ordinance in front of them while reading the Commission's bylaws, the Commission should at least put a reference stating the City Code section that details the membership policies. Councilmember Plunkett suggested that it would be better to put the language from the ordinance into the rules and procedures document. Commissioner Waite pointed out that Items C, D and G are not contained in the previously approved ordinance. He noted that participation, excused absences, etc. are not addressed in the ordinance and should be included in the bylaws. Commissioner Kindness agreed. Commissioner LeWarne also questioned whether or not the bylaws should speak regarding the election of the chair and vice chair since it is not covered in the ordinance. Mr. Chave suggested that the rules and procedures should specify the minimum that the Commission wants to do such as chair and vice chair appointments, but they should not go to such detail as to set forth all of the subcommittees that would be established. Commissioner LeWarne pointed out that the sample document from Ritzville states that a chair and vice chair would be elected at the first meeting of the year to serve throughout the year and no more than two terms. Mr. Chave replied that language related to the election of chair and vice chair would be sufficient. The Commission could also choose to put a limitation on terms, but they would not have to do so. Commissioner LeWarne recommended that Section A be changed as follows: Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 12, 2002 Page 3 The first paragraph should be changed to read, "The Commission shall consist of seven members as specified in Ordinance 3392." The remainder of the paragraph would be deleted. Retain Section A.2 as written. Retain Section A.2, but change it to read, "The Historic Preservation Commission staff may consist of those persons designated by the Mayor as specified in Ordinance 3392." The remainder of the section should be deleted. Commissioner LeWarne recalled that Councilmember Plunkett suggested that the language in the ordinance be moved into this section. COMMISSIONER KINDNESS MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEPT SECTION A AS MODIFIED, BUT THAT THEY SPECIFY WHICH SECTIONS OF ORDINANCE 3392 ARE APPLICABLE. Commissioner Waite said he feels it is appropriate to delete a lot of the language in the proposed document because there are many things that may have come from another jurisdiction that must be tailored to the specifics of Edmonds. He reminded the Commission that they have the ability to periodically add to their bylaws as appropriate. COMMISSIONER WAITE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Next, the Commission discussed Section B, related to Commission compensation. Councilmember Plunkett said the ordinance already covers this policy and he sees no point in including it in the policies and procedures. COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED THAT SECTION B BE DELETED FROM THE DRAFT POLICIES AND PROCEDURE DOCUMENT. COMMISSIONER KINDNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Commissioner LeWarne referred the Commission to Section C, which relates to Commission vacancies. Councilmember Plunkett said that if the ordinance does not include a policy regarding vacancies, perhaps Section C is appropriate for inclusion. COMMISSIONER WAITE MOVED THAT SECTION C BE RETAINED AS SECTION B IN THE DRAFT POLICIES AND PROCEDURE DOCUMENT AS WRITTEN. COMMISSIONER ARNOLD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Commissioner LeWarne advised that the Administrative Subcommittee has recommended that Sections D, E and F be deleted from the document and that Section G remain. COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO DELETE SECTIONS D, E AND F FROM THE DRAFT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES DOCUMENT. Mr. Chave suggested that perhaps the Commission should consider leaving Section E in the document. He explained there could be a situation when a single Commissioner inappropriately represents the Commission to other bodies, and this section would govern that issue. He added that Section F would be appropriate for inclusion if the Commission were charged with making quasi-judicial decisions. However, since the Open Meeting Act would cover this issue, it might be appropriate to delete it from the policies and procedures. THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COMMISSIONER KINDNESS MOVED THAT SECTION D BE REMOVED FROM THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES DOCUMENT. COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. The Commissioners briefly discussed the general philosophy and purpose behind deleting and adding language to the proposed document. Commissioner LeWarne said his impression is that the Commission is seeking simplicity. The intent is to not be redundant by restating information that is already addressed in the ordinance. Commissioner Kindness added that it Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 12, 2002 Page 4 is important that the bylaws contain all of the necessary information. She agreed that if the information is covered in the ordinance, they could simply make a reference to the ordinance language. But important information that is not included in the ordinance should be placed in the bylaws. Commissioner Waite said it appears that the Commission has voted to remove some sections of the proposed document even though the information is not addressed in the ordinance. For example, Item F states, "The Commissioners shall refrain from expressing opinions." While this is common sense, perhaps they should leave this section in the document to give the Chair the ability to handle this type of situation if it arises. On the other hand, the document can end up being too lengthy. Commissioner LeWarne clarified that the intent of the decisions that have been made so far is to simplify the document and refer, when possible, to the ordinance. A prospective new Commissioner would be given both the ordinance and the rules and procedures. He reminded the Commission that the motion on the floor was related to Section D. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Commissioner Waite referred to Section E, and explained that he previously served on a commission where this type of policy did not exist. When a problem arose with one of their members, the Mayor was unable to take care of the situation. He said he would hate to see this same thing happen again. Therefore, he suggested that Section E be retained. COMMISSIONER KINDNESS MOVED THAT SECTION E BE RETAINED IN THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES DOCUMENT. COMMISSIONER WAITE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Chave suggested that Section F is too broad, and would prohibit the Commissioners from discussing anything that is on the agenda outside of the meeting. He suggested that if the Commission wants to retain Section F, it should be changed to apply only to quasi-judicial issues and not general interest items. COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED THAT SECTION F BE MODIFIED TO READ "THE COMMISSION MEMBERS SHALL REFRAIN FROM DISCUSSING OR EXPRESSING OPINIONS OUTSIDE OF COMMISSION MEETINGS ON MATTERS OF A QUASI-JUDICIAL NATURE." COMMISSIONER WAITE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Chave expressed his opinion that it would be appropriate to retain Section G as written. COMMISSIONER KINDNESS MOVED THAT SECTION G BE RATAINED IN THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES DOCUMENT. COMMISSIONER WAITE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Chave said this section is similar to a City Council policy that requires a member who did not attend a previous discussion on a particular item to state that he/she reviewed the record of that meeting. COMMISSIONER WAITE MOVED THAT SECTION H BE RETAINED IN THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES DOCUMENT AS WRITTEN. COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Commissioner LeWarne referred to Section I. La and suggested that the words at the last part of the sentence be deleted starting with "at 7:00 p.m." He also recommended that the last two sentences referring to the change of meeting place be deleted. Mr. Chave suggested that after the Commission has reviewed and highlighted all of their changes, they could make a motion on the entire document. The Commission agreed. Commissioner LeWarne referred to Section 2.D and said the proposed change would coincide with what Chair Marmion has decided as the order of business for each agenda. Mr. Chave suggested that Section 2.D should read, "The regular order of business shall be as determined by the Chair." The Commission agreed. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 12, 2002 Page 5 Commissioner LeWarne moved forward two pages, and referenced Section 2 in the middle of the page. He suggested that Ordinance 3397 and ECDC 20.45.020 be substituted for this section. He also suggested that staff reword the previous paragraph, as well. Mr. Chave suggested that perhaps this section is not necessary, and with the exception of the first sentence, it should be deleted. Commissioner LeWarne moved to the next page and referenced Section C.2. He recommended that the words "visits the property" be changed to "may visit the property." Commissioner Kindness questioned whether a mandatory site visit by each Commissioner should be a requirement. Commissioner LeWarne said that sometimes it may be difficult for the entire Commission to visit a site, but the staff would be able to visit a site and provide photos and necessary information. Mr. Chave suggested that the recommended addition of the words "such as a staff person" is not really necessary. The Commission agreed to insert the word "may" before "visit." Commissioner LeWarne said he did not think the Commission would be responsible for designating the level of significance. While the State and National Registers makes this distinction, he thought the Commission was just going to identify significant properties in Edmonds. Ms. Campbell said her impression was that the Commission would identify properties with local significance. They could later decide to nominate some of these sites for State or National recognition. Commissioner LeWarne said that when a property comes before the National Council, they make a distinction between National, State and Local significance. However, he did not feel this would be necessary for the Commission to do unless they are sending a recommendation to the State or National Commissions. Commissioner LeWarne suggested that the section stating which properties are eligible and which are not is unnecessary since this is covered in the ordinance. Councilmember Plunkett noted that the ordinance already makes reference to the State Statutes in regards to these kinds of details. Mr. Chave suggested that Item C be retained up to the words "the Commission." The list of five items could also be deleted. The last sentence could read, "The Commission determines that the property meets the criteria and votes on the recommendation." The Commission agreed. Commissioner LeWarne referenced the section that states, "The historic district boundaries go to the Planning Board for review and recommendation to the City Council." He inquired if this identifies the correct procedure. Mr. Chave said the current process is that the Historic Preservation Commission would make a recommendation to the City Council, who would have the final say on designations. The Planning Board is not involved in the process. The Commission agreed that Section 6 should be deleted. Section 7 should be modified by deleting the words "and Planning Board." Section 8 should be retained. Commissioner LeWarne referred to the section titled "Miscellaneous," and suggested that Item 3 be substituted with a reference to Ordinance 3397 and ECDC 20.45.030. In Section D, the ordinance number needs to be corrected. Commissioner LeWarne moved forward two pages and specifically referenced Section a.1. He inquired if an applicant who wants to make changes would have to go to the building inspector or building official. Mr. Chave said that since all building activity would require a permit and the building official would be involved, this section could be taken out. The Commission agreed. Commissioner LeWarne referred to the Section that discusses design review, and inquired if the Commission would be responsible for this. Mr. Chave said this section relates to a certificate of appropriateness. Before issuing a certificate of appropriateness, the Commission must look at what is being proposed for a historic site and determine if it is appropriate for its designation. The Commission agreed that this section should remain for the time being. Commissioner LeWarne referenced the section related to criteria. This language describes the types of things the Commission should consider when reviewing property. He suggested that it seems unnecessary to include all of this language in the policies and procedures document. Mr. Chave said that since the language in this section is fairly general and consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards, it could be left in the document. The Commission agreed. Commissioner LeWarne next referred to Section 6—National Register Review. He suggested this should also say "Washington Heritage Register and National Register of Historic Places." The Commission agreed. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 12, 2002 Page 6 Next, Commissioner LeWarne referred to B.2 on the next page and suggested that it be changed to state, "visit the property if possible." COMMISSIONER KINDNESS MOVED TO ADOPT THE REMAINDER OF THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES DOCUMENT AS MODIFIED BY CONSENSUS. COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. Commissioner Waite inquired if the document would be reviewed on a regular basis. Mr. Chave answered that the policies and procedures can be reviewed and amended at any point in time. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Ms. Campbell referred to the sample brochures that were made by the City of Auburn for their historic preservation program. These were available to the Commissioners prior to the meeting for their review. Mr. Chave said that while working for the City of Auburn, he helped to initiate an historic preservation program using a grant from King County's CLG to do inventory and publication. They hired an intern to go around the City and photograph and compile historic information on various sites. Next, they hired a professional to review his work and write some descriptions that were later incorporated into the brochures that were done in house. Ms. Campbell said that she requested that the Snohomish County Historic Preservation Commission place her name on their mailing list. She said she would share any information she receives with the Commission. Councilmember Plunkett inquired if the CLG application could be reassembled and sent back down to the State office for review now that they have approved their policies and procedures document. Mr. Chave suggested that staff make all of the corrections identified by the Commission and forward the new draft to each member within the next few days. If they do not make any comments by a certain date, the document will be forwarded to the State along with the CLG application. The Commission agreed. 11. REVIEW OF NEXT MEETING PROPOSED AGENDA Commissioner LeWarne advised that each of the subcommittees would provide their monthly reports at the next meeting, In addition, Pat Bergsman would be present to speak to the Commission regarding grant applications. 12. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CHAIR COMMENTS Commissioner LeWarne provided no additional comments during this portion of the meeting. 13. HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEMBER COMMENTS None of the Commissioners provided further comments during this portion of the meeting. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to address, the Commission adjourned at 4:59 p.m. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 12, 2002 Page 7 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 12, 2002 Page 8