Loading...
2003-10-09 Historic Preservation Commission MinutesHISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES October 09, 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting of the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission was called to order at 3:30 p.m. in the 3rd Floor Conference Room of City Hall, 121 — 51 Avenue North. PRESENT ABSENT Darrell Marmion, Chair Chuck LeWarne Gregg Arnold, Vice Chair Stephen Waite Ed Baker Barbara Kindness Michael Plunkett 2. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA No changes were made to the proposed agenda. 3. READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Star Campbell, Assistant Planner Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager COMMISSIONER KINDNESS MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 14, 2003 AND SEPTEMBER 11, 2003 AS CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER ARNOLD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE There was no one present in the audience. 5. DESIGN REVIEWS There were no design reviews scheduled on the agenda. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business scheduled on the agenda. 7. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS a. Administrative Subcommittee Report Council Member Plunkett reported that Commissioner LeWarne made a presentation before the Hotel/Motel Taxing Lodge Commission/Authority on the Commission's grant application. He reported that the Commission's application was modest in dollars compared to the others, but he has not received any feedback to date. Council Member Plunkett said he suspects the Commission/Authority will make a decision regarding the 2004 grants before the end of 2003. b. Communications Subcommittee Report Commissioner Arnold recalled that the Communications Subcommittee made a commitment to provide a layout of the tourism version of the brochure. They also committed to layout a plan for Channel 21. He reported that the Communications Subcommittee has been working on the brochure, but because they thought the October meeting would be taken up with a designation review, they did prepare their report. They will report their progress on the tourism brochure at the November meeting. Commissioner Arnold distributed a rough draft of a storyboard for putting together a VHS tape the City could broadcast on Channel 21. He said he is also researching options for obtaining help to produce the tape such as using high school students, etc. He said the next step would be for the Communications Subcommittee to flush the plan out and prepare the storyboard to identify the audio and visual plans. Once this is done, they will review the plans with the Commission. They will also take the storyboard to the City staff before producing the tape to make sure that it is, in fact, something that they will broadcast. Council Member Plunkett said he is excited about the progress that has been made by the Communications Subcommittee. Once they get this piece done, they will be able to adapt the production to communicate various things to the community. Commissioner Arnold said he envisions the Commission using the tape to get people excited about historic preservation and to lead them to the Commission's web site for specific information. Chair Marmion noted that producing the video would take time. In the meantime, he questioned if it would be worth spending some time polishing up what they have and putting it in tape format. Or is it better to wait until the professional tape is available? Commissioner Arnold said they could use what they already have on an interim basis, but change the copy. He said the most difficult part of producing the video is identifying exactly what the Commission wants to convey to the public. He agreed that combining the information provided on the storyboard with what is already available would be a great first step. He asked that the Commissioners provide feedback as to content. Once he feels he has enough substance, he can put the plan together. Chair Marmion agreed. He said that if the Communications Subcommittee were to combine what they have with the information that has already been put together they could create a power point presentation that could be put onto VHS Tape with some music and background quite quickly. Council Member Plunkett said he could provide introductory language on how and why the Historic Preservation Commission was created. He could also provide language related to the two major incentives the Incentives Subcommittee is working on. The tax incentive is already in place, and they are now working out the details of the rehabilitation code. Commissioner Arnold agreed that would be helpful. The Commission discussed the length of the proposed videotape and when it would be run on Channel 21. Commissioner Arnold said it is difficult to work through the process because various Administrative Staff is responsible. Council Member Plunkett agreed that the City Council has not really researched all of the options available through Channel 21. Up to this point, the City Staff has taken responsibility for this, and they are doing a great job. Commissioner Arnold suggested that perhaps the Commission could encourage the City Council to review the issue further. Commissioner Waite referred to an article in THE SEATTLE TIMES regarding the City of Renton. They have a gentleman who has done fantastic things with their public broadcasting opportunities. Perhaps they should be used as a resource to gather ideas about funding, etc. Commissioner Arnold agreed to locate this article and consider it for further information. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 9, 2003 Page 2 Commissioner Kindness said that eventually having visual information on Channel 21 to identify the steps that a person would take to be on the register would be helpful. Chair Marmion agreed that perhaps the video could be used to capture the public's attention and then direct them to the web site for detailed instructions and information. Commissioner Kindness reported that Tony Ventrella, the News Anchor for Channel Q13, has been doing features on different cities. He has done Everett and Federal Way in the recent past. He just notified her that he is interested in doing Edmonds this month (October 29'). She said she has forwarded this request to Mayor Haakenson. She said she informed Mr. Ventrella of some of the activities that take place in Edmonds, such as trick -or -treating in the downtown on Halloween Night. He is interested in promoting upcoming events. She said Mr. Ventrella will be interviewing Mayor Haakenson, and she suggested that perhaps the Commission could ask the Mayor to speak about historic preservation activities that are taking place in the City. This would be a great opportunity for publicity. The Commission agreed that Chair Marmion should contact the Mayor regarding this request. Chair Marmion said that perhaps the notification for the upcoming design review would be available for the Mayor to report. Commissioner Arnold suggested that Mr. Ventrella should be encouraged to visit the Museum or Old Mill Town to focus on the historic significance of the City. C. Historic Register Subcommittee Reuort Chair Marmion reported that, hopefully, at least one of the pending design review applications would be available at the November Commission Meeting. Chair Marmion recalled that, at the last meeting, there was an open question about whether Commission members could be the applicant and still participate in the review of a property. Mr. Chave said that since the review would be considered legislative, there are no prohibitions on Commissioner participation. Council Member Plunkett agreed that the Commission previously concluded that the design review hearings are not quasi-judicial. Therefore, the Commissioners have almost unlimited freedom to participate in the hearings, with the exception of situations where financial interests are involved. Chair Marmion said that the Commission has previously raised questions regarding their ability to approach property owners to try and understand more about buildings that are coming up for design review. He inquired if there are limits to what the Commissioners can do. He recalled that at one time the Commission discussed that they should not talk directly with an applicant. However, at the last meeting it was discussed that, since the issue is legislative, there are no limitations on the Commissioners' ability to discuss the merits of the application with the applicant. Mr. Chave concurred. Council Member Plunkett said that while there are no specific prohibitions for Commissioners being advocates for designation review applications, it is probably a good idea to try and give the appearance of being judicious and considering all the issues. Commissioner Kindness suggested that it is important that the press understand the Commission's ability in this regard. Chair Marmion reminded the Commission that their purpose is to look out for things that have historic significance and then do what they can to encourage preservation. Chair Marmion recalled that he was supposed to meet with the staff to figure out what the next step on the grant application process should be, but he has not been able to do this yet. He also reminded the Commissioners that they need to keep track of their time starting October 1". Mr. Chave said that while he thought there was a state form that could be used for this purpose, there is not. Therefore, staff will send an email version of a form that they can used instead. Chair Marmion also asked that Mr. Chave provide guidelines for additional clarification. Mr. Chave said the time sheet does not have to be submitted on a regular basis. When they have something to show, they should turn the sheet in at that point. Mr. Chave said the form would be simple and provide a space for each Commissioner to identify a date, the number of hours used, and a brief description of the activity. Mr. Chave advised that, at some point, the Commission needs to accumulate a resource list, and this burden should not be put entirely on Commissioner LeWarne. He suggested that the Commissioners begin to think about the best way to help Commissioner LeWarne. Perhaps rather than doing this at a full meeting, they could hold a special meeting at the Museum, and Commissioner LeWarne could show the Commissioners some of the things that are available and provide ideas about where they can look for other information. The more of this they can do on their own, the less time the consultant will have Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 9, 2003 Page 3 to spend. Commissioner Baker said he would contact Commissioner LeWarne to set up a possible date for the special meeting. Chair Marmion said he views the special meeting as a type of "kick off' session. The Commission could review the resources available and identify a timeline of what needs to be done before the consultant comes on board, etc. He said he would work with the staff to develop a timeline of the tasks that need to be accomplished before the special meeting. Mr. Chave said the consultant will know what basic resources are available, but they will also have to identify those things that are unique to Edmonds. Commissioner Arnold noted that at Edmonds/Woodway High School, every student has to do 90 hours of public service work before they can graduate. When he talks to them about getting help on the production of the video, he will also check on opportunities for the students to do data input, etc. associated with the inventory. d. Incentives Subcommittee Reuort Commissioner Waite reported that he met with the Community Services Director, Duane Bowman, along with the building official and the assistant building official. They have indicated that they do not really support the idea of changing the ordinance in regards to how the City can assist or help people who have historic structures when they apply for building permits, etc. Instead, they would like to write a separate policy that would expedite permits for historic structures. They noted that this policy would have to be approved by the City Council by ordinance. Commissioner Waite inquired if there is anyway for the City to expedite the public notification process for permits associated with historic structures. Mr. Chave said all of the City's deadlines are driven by legal requirements, but he would research the option further. As an example, Commissioner Waite noted that the City has a 21-day time period for certificate of completion. Mr. Chave said the City staff has to determine within 28 days whether or not an application is complete. He said the staff does not only look at completeness during that time period, but they actually start the review process. Mr. Bowman has discussed with the staff the idea of determining completeness at the counter when the application is submitted. Ms. Campbell said a lot of the projects that would utilize the special building code for historic structures, such as changes in occupancy, would not require planning permits. Commissioner Waite said non -conforming structures and parking requirements are two issues that still could be addressed. Mr. Chave said that in his experience, historic buildings have more trouble meeting codes than they do with timelines. Commissioner Waite agreed, and said the Incentives Subcommittee's goal is to compile as many incentives as possible to encourage the preservation of historic structure. Again, he said the Building Department is willing to write a policy that somehow expresses that the City is enthusiastic about helping people with historic structures. Mr. Chave said parking is usually a significant issue for historic buildings because, typically, they don't have underground garages or on -site parking, etc. This becomes a big deal when trying to get businesses to occupy the space. Commissioner Waite said the 1997 Design Guidelines speak quite nicely about historic structures, and now it is a matter of how those will be executed. Somewhere in the guidelines there are probably parking incentives for historical structures. Mr. Chave said the Planning Board would begin their review of the downtown parking study in November. As part of that process, perhaps the Commission would want to provide some input on issues related to historic preservation. Chair Marmion agreed that this would be an excellent opportunity —especially since the study downplayed the parking problem. Chave said the study also makes the recommendation that a flat rate be charged for new buildings and that all other buildings be grandfathered in. This would include the historical sites. He said he anticipates that this recommendation wcould be controversial, and it would be appropriate for the Commission to get involved to make sure that at least the historic structures are grandfathered. Commissioner Waite said the Building Department made a suggestion for dealing with buildings that would typically require Architectural Design Board review. Mr. Chave said the Commission's by-laws make mention of this issue. Commissioner Waite inquired if it would be easier for the applicant to come before the Historic Preservation Commission for approval rather than the Architectural Design Board. Ms. Campbell said this would require a significant code change. Mr. Chave suggested that, instead, it might be more appropriate for owners of historic properties to present their designs to the Commission to obtain their support before the proposal is reviewed by the Architectural Design Board. Chair Marmion said Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 9, 2003 Page 4 applicants who wish to register a historic building could be required to obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Commission and then go to the Architectural Design Board. This would help the applicant when the application is presented to the Architectural Design Board. Ms. Campbell said her interpretation of Commissioner Waite's suggestion is that the applications should require Commission review and approval rather than Architectural Design Board review and approval. Commissioner Waite said this idea was put forward by the Building Department staff. He suggested that if an applicant is making an addition to a historic structure and it meets the requirements for a certificate of appropriateness, perhaps they should not require a property owner to go before the Architectural Design Board, as well. Chair Marmion pointed out that the Historic Preservation Commission would only be considering the application for its historic preservation merits. The Architectural Design Board must also take into account issues such as lighting, noise, etc. He felt this would be a major change that would be difficult to do. Commissioner Waite suggested that if this change cannot be made, perhaps the Architectural Design Board could attempt to expedite their review process. Chair Marmion said that if the Historic Preservation Commission were to endorse an application, it might help the Architectural Design Board expedite their review. Chair Waite said he believes there is an opportunity for the City to capitalize on the fact that the preservation of historic structures provides a public benefit. Perhaps that is why the City is willing to consider opportunities to expedite the process. If both a review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Architectural Design Board is required for projects that have historic significance, then perhaps they need to further consider opportunities to assist these property owners in moving through the process quickly. Anything they can do to convince these property owners to restore and preserve their historic properties would be helpful. Commissioner Kindness inquired if the Incentives Subcommittee has identified the number of incentives that would be necessary in order to entice people to preserve their historic sites. Council Member Plunkett said there are already potential codes available for incentives. The bigger question is whether or not the City would implement them. The Building Department is working with the Incentives Subcommittee to determine which incentives can be implemented to make historic preservation economically attractive. If there are no economic incentives associated with historic preservation, property owners will not be willing to register their properties. Commissioner Waite said if the process is extremely burdensome, property owners would also be discouraged from registering their properties. Mr. Chave clarified that, generally, projects involving historic buildings do not require an Architectural Design Board review if the property owner would merely be renovating or restoring the building. The bigger issue for the property owner will be getting the business licenses, parking permits, etc. He said that fees can often become an issue, and perhaps they should consider reduced fees for certain types of things or other options for removing obstacles. Commissioner Kindness suggested that some type of beautification incentive could also be offered. Council Member Plunkett pointed out that historic structures could be much more usable than a new building on the same site if incentives are offered. If that is the case, then property owners will be encouraged to maintain and preserve the sites. Council Member Plunkett advised that the Incentives Subcommittee would come back to the November meeting with more information to report. Mr. Chave said it would also be appropriate for the Incentives Subcommittee to review the parking study and identify specific things that would benefit historic sites. He said it is important for the Commission to provide their comments related to the parking study at the Planning Board's public hearing. 8. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business scheduled on the agenda. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 9, 2003 Page 5 9. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Ms. Campbell referred to the designation review process timeline that was provided to each of the Commissioners. She said Chair Marmion prepared the timeline to provide a visual illustration of how the designation review process would work from the time the applicant submits an application until the City Council makes the ultimate decision. The timeline was also created to provide a handout to citizens who come to the Planning Department. This handout would illustrate how the review process works. Mr. Chave suggested that, at some point, the Commission should schedule the timeline on a future agenda and provide their comments and suggestions. Ms. Campbell reviewed the few suggestions she noted on the draft timeline. She said that while she understands the Commission's desire to provide a good estimate of how long it would take for an application to be scheduled on the Commission's agenda for review, one month is quite fast because of the notification requirements. Mr. Chave said the biggest question, up front, is whether or not enough information has been provided on the application. If there is adequate information, the application could be scheduled on the Commission's agenda quite quickly. But if the information is insufficient, it would be difficult to schedule the application on an agenda within one month. Chair Marmion said that when preparing the timeline, he assumed that it would start with a completed application. In addition, he noted that most of the information and language that he used in the draft timeline was extracted from the by-laws. Mr. Chave clarified that, ultimately, there must be some kind of approval by the owner in the file before a final ordinance can be considered and adopted by the City Council. The Council could approve the Commission's recommendation, but the ordinance would not come back for final approval until the owner had actually signed off and given his/her approval. Mr. Chave briefly described the process. First, the Commission would hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council, who would review the Commission's recommendation and indicate whether or not they believe the site is eligible to be included on the historic register. Then the Commission would have to bring back an ordinance on the City Council's consent agenda that would include the property owner's written acknowledgement that they want to be listed on the register. Chair Marmion said he would change the timeline to correctly reflect the process described by Mr. Chave. Chair Marmion said the draft timeline does not include the filing of records into the database as required by the State as per their Certified Local Government Status. Commissioner Kindness inquired what the Communications Subcommittee's responsibility would be in the timeline. Council Member Plunkett said their role would involve hanging the plaque, issuing a press release, etc. Chair Marmion said he would continue to clean up the draft timeline. He said he looks forward to receiving additional input from the Commissioners. Ms. Campbell referred to the list of events associated with the Washington State Archaeology Month, which was provided to each of the Commissioners. She said she placed the poster in a place that is visible to members of the community who come to the Development Services Department. Mr. Chave said the staff was able to get all of the signed documents and contracts associated with the grant back to the State as required. 10. REVIEW OF NEXT MEETING'S PROPOSED AGENDA Other than the possibility of holding a designation review, Chair Marmion inquired if any Commissioners wanted to list a specific agenda item on the November 131h agenda. The Commissioners requested that Commissioner Baker contact Commissioner LeWarne to schedule the special meeting at the Museum for Thursday, October 23' at 3:30 p.m. Chair Marmion suggested that the sooner the agenda for the next meeting is provided to the Commissioners, the better since it tends to inspire them to get moving on their projects and assignments. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 9, 2003 Page 6 11. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Marmion provided no additional comments during this portion of the meeting. 12. HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEMBER COMMENTS None of the Commissioners provided additional comments. 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 9, 2003 Page 7