Loading...
2003-11-13 Historic Preservation Commission MinutesHISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES November 13, 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 — 5' Avenue North. PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Darrell Marmion, Chair Star Campbell, Planner Gregg Arnold, Vice Chair Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Stephen Waite Jeannine Graf, Building Official Ed Baker Barbara Kindness Michael Plunkett Chuck LeWarne 2. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The Commission accepted the agenda as proposed. 3. READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER KINDNESS MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9, 2003 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER WAITE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE The person present in the audience did not express a desire to address the Commission during this portion of the meeting. 5. DESIGNATION REVIEWS a. ADDlication for Designation of the Edmonds Historical Museum (Former Carnegie Librarv) at 118 — 5th Avenue North as eligible for inclusion in the Edmonds Register of Historic Places Chair Marmion referred the Commissioners to their copies of the application and staff report that were provided prior to the meeting. He noted that since this is the first time the Commission has gone through a designation review, he intends to be fairly methodical about the process so that the Commission has a clear understanding of the review requirements. Chair Marmion reminded the Commission that this review is legislative, not quasi-judicial. Therefore, rules related to procedure are somewhat more lenient. The only limitation listed in the Commission Bylaws is that, "No Commission Member shall vote on the determination if he/she or his/her immediate family has a financial interest in the case." He said that at the beginning of each design review, this question should be asked and included on the record. Chair Marmion also reminded the Commission that their purpose is to review the application as per its historic significance based on specific criteria provided in the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.45.010. As the Commission considers the application, testimony, staff research and other pertinent information, they should try to determine whether or not the application meets the requirements of that section of the code. Once the hearing has been completed, the Commission would forwarded a recommendation to the City Council. If the Commission decides to recommend approval of an application, the owner's consent would be required prior to the property going on the register. The designation is meant to be an honorary designation and not an attempt to remove property rights. Chair Marmion referred to a chart he prepared to illustrate the process that could be followed to designate a property on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The Commission should keep in mind that today's review is only one part of the process. He said that once the Commission has finalized the process, he hopes to have this type of chart available for the public and applicants so that everyone is clear on what the process is. Chair Marmion pointed out that if a property ends up on the historic register, it is an honorary type of designation. However, there are certain obligations that go with that. Once the property is on the register, the owner must request a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Commission prior to commencement of any work on the property, excluding ordinary repair and maintenance and emergency measures as allowed per code. Violation of this requirement would be grounds for the Commission to review removal of the property from the register. Chair Marmion went on to note that prior to partial or whole demolition of a property, the owner must request and receive a waiver of Certificate of Appropriateness from the Commission. Because Edmonds is a recognized Certified Local Government, any property on the register may be eligible for special tax valuation as laid out in the ECDC. Council Member Plunkett questioned if it would help to have staff remind the Commission of the standards that have to be met at the time the applicant comes before the Commission or during the preview period for each application. In other words, how much of the criteria has to be met in order to meet the standard. He said he believes this can be found in the ECDC, but it is important for the Commission to be reminded. Chair Marmion agreed this would be helpful. He pointed out that the staff report walks the Commission through a checklist of the criteria that must be met. Commissioner Arnold inquired by whom and how the owner of the property would be approached after the Commission has made their recommendation to the City Council. Chair Marmion said the bylaws state that prior to an application going to the City Council for approval, owner consent is required. However, it does not state whether the staff or the Commission would be responsible for obtaining this approval from the applicant. Council Member Plunkett clarified that the Commission's review is not based upon whether the applicant wants the designation or not. The Commission's review is based upon whether or not the Commission believes it the property is eligible for designation. Chair Marmion agreed, and reminded the Commission that their charter is to try and identify historic resources and be an advocate for these resources within what the code allows. Doing a formal review, whether or not there would be owner consent, establishes a public record that the review has been done and identifies whether or not the property meets the ECDC requirements. Ideally, the Commission should know that they have owner consent going into their review, but this should not limit what they do. Chair Marmion said he is actually wearing four hats at this meeting. He is the Chair and will run the agenda of the meeting, and he is a Commission member, so he will participate in the review. In addition, on this first property, he happens to be the applicant. He is also on the subcommittee that is trying to work out the process. He said his understanding of the Commission Bylaws and codes is that there would be no conflict, but this may be too much for him to do. He suggested that perhaps Commissioner Arnold should chair the designation review portion of the meeting. The Commission agreed that Chair Marmion should assume the role of applicant, and Commissioner Arnold would be the acting chair of the meeting during the hearing. Vice Chair Arnold invited the staff to present their staff report. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 13, 2003 Page 2 Mr. Chave referred the Commission to the staff report that was provided to each of the Commissioners prior to the meeting in addition to the materials provided by the applicant. There are also several larger photographs available for the Commission's perusal, but they are essentially the same as the ones that were included in the packet. Mr. Chave briefly reviewed the staff report, which first provides some basic information concerning the property owner/applicant. In addition a summary of the staff recommendation was provided stating that staff believes the application meets the criteria to make it eligible for designation in the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Next, Mr. Chave said the staff report provides the criteria in a checklist format. He emphasized that the first three criteria are required, and the fourth criteria simply says that the application has to fit into at least one of the eleven potential designation categories. He provided a brief summary of the staff s analysis for each of the designation criteria. He reviewed that the Carnegie Library was, and still is, associated with Andrew Carnegie, who is a significant figure in American History, particularly for his philanthropic projects. The library is not only associated with an individual but also a period of history when Mr. Carnegie started the Carnegie Foundation, which funded libraries and other kinds of public works. This is the only building in Edmonds that was funded by that foundation, and is actually one of the few in the country that has not been altered much. The Carnegie Library in Edmonds has the added interest of the little jail cell in the cellar that people are shown during visits to the museum. On a number of grounds, staff believes this is a worthy historical site. In addition, it is already on the National Register of Historic Places. Staff recommends that the site meets Criteria 1 and should be recommended to the City Council. Vice Chair Arnold briefly reviewed the flow of the designation review hearing. The first thing was opening comments by the staff. Next, would be a presentation by the applicant or the designated agent who would present statements in favor of the application. Then the Commission would accept comments from the City of Edmonds Planning Board and interested persons, organizations or legal entities. After that, an opportunity for rebuttal would be provided to all concerned parties, and then staff would be allowed to provide general comments. The Chair would then summarize what was presented and the Commission would deliberate the application. Lastly, the Commission would make a motion for the recommendation based on the designated criteria. Darrell Marmion, 750 Edmonds Street, said he is the applicant, but not the owner, of the subject property. The owner is the City of Edmonds. He said most of the information provided in the application matches the staff report. He noted that in the application he added some detailed information about what has changed on the building, itself, over the years. Primarily, the only thing that has been changed on the exterior of the building are the windows. Very few other modifications have been done to the building. So as far as integrity and the building being close to its original structure, it's pretty amazing. He showed photos to illustrate this. The first picture was taken just after the building was constructed in 1910 or 1911. The second photo was taken in 1960, and the last one was taken in 2001. He said the only noteworthy item that is missing from the exterior is the siren that used to be located on the roof, but this was not on the building when it was first built. Mr. Marmion said that while he did not include this in his application, something that should be considered in future applications is the extent to which the applicant is requesting the site be put on the register. One option is that the application be for just the exterior only. Another option would be for just the interior of the building, etc. He said his intent for this application is to address the exterior of the building. He expressed concern that if they also included the interior of the building, anytime they wanted to move a wall or a partition, it may require a review for a Certificate of Appropriateness. He concluded that the material he provided in the application was related to the exterior of the building. Vice Chair Arnold inquired if there is a place on the application for the applicant to make it clear whether the application applies to the interior, the exterior or both. Mr. Marmion said he remembers reading in materials provided by the state that the Commission could consider different parts of the building, but he doesn't know the best way for doing this. Vice Chair Arnold said that if the Commission is going to come to a recommendation on the application, they need to have it clearly articulated as to what the application is for. He said he does not recall, when reading through the application, that there was a place to mention this. Mr. Chave suggested that something could be added between the owner applicant information and the report summary that indicates exactly what the applicant is requesting the designation for. The remainder of the Commissioners agreed that this change should be made. Commissioner Marmion said he would recommend that the same thing be added to the application form so that the applicant could specify what portions of the site are to be considered. Commissioner Waite noted that the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 13, 2003 Page 3 nomination form, itself, looks similar to the one used by the State of Washington. Mr. Chave agreed, but said that does not mean the Commission would be unable to make changes. Mr. Marmion said the information laid out in the application and the staffs report matches what he hoped to convey in the application. Vice Chair Arnold inquired if Mr. Marmion is requesting to officially amend the application to include only the exterior of the building. Mr. Marmion answered affirmatively. Vice Chair Arnold asked that Mr. Chave take care of this change before the application goes to the City Council. Mr. Chave said this change would be included in the record that is forwarded to the City Council. Mr. Marmion noted that while the exterior of the building has historical integrity, many portions of the inside have been compromised. That is why the application is only intended for the exterior features of the building. Commissioner Kindness inquired if the National Register of Historic Places breaks the designation down into exterior only. Commissioner LeWarne said he does not believe the National Register makes any distinction between exterior and interior. Sometimes interiors are altered and still included on the register. Commissioner Waite pointed out that the applicant has filled out a form titled, "Physical Description of Overall Condition." He questioned if the Commission needs to verify the accuracy of this portion of the application. Commissioner Marmion said this is an important issue to consider since the data on this form is what will get put into the State Register. Mr. Chave said that as part of the Commission's deliberation and decision, they should indicate if they feel there are some differences of opinion with what the applicant put in the physical description. Commissioner Waite inquired what the Commission would do if they found that their observation of the site does not match the physical description provided by the applicant. Vice Chair Arnold said that since the physical description would become part of the record, the Commission should discuss the discrepancies they believe exist. Commissioner Marmion agreed, and said that once the Commission has discussed what they see as discrepancies, the applicant could then have a chance to rebut before the Commission makes their recommendation. Commissioner LeWarne said that photographs are valuable because they help to show if there have been substantial changes. In the case of this application, there does not appear to be any changes, but sometimes there will be significant changes associated with some applications. Vice Chair Arnold referred to the term "overall condition" and inquired if this means like it was originally, or how good of shape is it in just as a building, regardless of how old it is. Mr. Chave said "condition" is not necessarily related to what the original structure was. It is related to the current condition of the building. He noted that there are other categories on the application that talk about whether the building is intact, modified, or so forth. The term "overall condition" really addresses the current shape of the building. Vice Chair Arnold inquired as to the basis for Mr. Marmion identifying the buildings condition as excellent. Mr. Marmion said his identification of the building was based on the age of the building and the level of condition that it is in considering that it is over 90 years old. Vice Chair Arnold asked that Mr. Waite clarify his reasoning that the condition should be designated as other than excellent. Commissioner Waite noted that there are three windows broken. Mr. Marmion said he realizes that this is just his subjective opinion. The Commission may determine that the condition of the building is good, but not excellent. However, as a Commissioner, he suggested that the only issue the Commission needs to be concerned about related to condition is whether or not a property is going into disrepair. In these situations, the Commission must consider removal from the register. Commissioner Baker inquired if the Commissioners all have the opportunity to visit sites and make their own opinions. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. Commissioner Waite said it might be that the Commissioners and the applicant will have differing opinions. Council Member Plunkett inquired as to what criteria the condition of the building would fall under. Mr. Chave said condition could be rolled into integrity, but it is peripheral, and not a direct criteria. Council Member Plunkett clarified that the building could be in less condition than the applicant is putting forward, but this would not really impact the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 13, 2003 Page 4 Commission's decision. Therefore, the condition of a building is not really relevant to its historical eligibility. Commissioner Marmion agreed, but only to the point where the building is at a point of disrepair. Commissioner Waite suggested that the term "overall condition" should be changed to "current observations." Mr. Chave said the overall condition would be based on the time the application was submitted. Vice Chair Arnold said he is sensing that information related to the "overall condition" is collateral information, but not the key information for designation. Once a property is designated on the register, the owner would be required to keep the property in good repair, regardless of it's condition at the time it is placed on the register. If a building that is run down is placed on the register, he questioned if the understanding would be that the owner would bring the structure up to good repair. Mr. Chave answered negatively. He said the Commission's recommendation is merely a statement of the significance of the site and provides incentives and benefits for people to maintain the structures. But the Commission really doesn't have any control or impact on how the building progresses over time. Commissioner Waite inquired if the Commission would be able to pull the Certificate of Appropriateness on a building that has been allowed to denigrate from the point where the Commission approved it. Mr. Chave said a Certificate of Appropriateness is only required if there is a project or a repair being brought to the Commission's attention. If the Commission found that a building on the register was deteriorating over time, they might approach the owner and try and get him/her to do something. But removing the building from the register would, if anything, have a counterproductive result, because then the owner would have no incentive to maintain it. Commissioner Marmion referred to ECDC 20.45.030—Removal of Properties from the Register. This states that in the event that a property is no longer eligible for the listing, the Commission may initiate removal from such designation, and does not require owner consent. So if a property owner fails to maintain one of the four requirements over time, and I think disrepair at some point would become an integrity issue, the Commission would have the ability to remove the structure from the register. Commissioner LeWarne agreed that if a structure on the register deteriorated to a point that it lost its integrity, then it could be removed from the register. Mike Wilcox, 1100 Edmonds Street, Vice President of the Board, Edmonds/South Snohomish County Historical Society, said they are honored to be the first building to come before the Commission for designation review. Commissioner Marmion read the letter from Michele Unger, 506 Bell Street, that was include in the Commission's packet. Ms. Unger is a neighbor of the subject property, and she expressed her pleasure that an application has been made to place the Edmonds Museum on the Register of Historic Places. She expressed her delight that plans are in place to protect and list the charming and historically significant building. She noted that many towns are failing to protect their historic buildings and are becoming bland and homogenized. She concluded by stating that Edmonds is unique and preserving the museum can only help to keep what is so special about Edmonds special into the future. Vice Chair Arnold advised that the Commission would now provide an opportunity for the applicant to provide rebuttal comments prior to allowing staff comments. Mr. Marmion indicated that he had no further comments to provide. Mr. Chave indicated that he had no additional staff comments, either. Council Member Plunkett noted that the Commission has not yet had an opportunity to ask the applicant or staff questions with respect to the criteria. He explained that this would be an opportunity for the Commission to make inquiries if they do not feel the application meets the criteria. Commissioner Waite said some of the criteria would be based on the applicant's description of the present and original physical appearance. He inquired where the applicant derived this information. He said at some point in time, the Commission needs justification to make sure that the description is accurate. Mr. Marmion noted that Section 7 of the application lists the bibliographical references that he used to prepare the application. The Snohomish County Historic Properties Registry had a lot of the narrative information that he referred to in the application. He also received information from the National Trust for Historic Preservation Database and from the Edmonds/South Snohomish County Historical Society Archives. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 13, 2003 Page 5 Commissioner Kindness inquired if the applicant had some specific background reason for the designation. For example, does he have a professional expertise in architecture, just an interest or a connection of some type to the building? Mr. Marmion answered that his interest in personal. Council Member Plunkett asked Mr. Marmion to identify which four the criteria under Criteria 4 he feels the application meets. Mr. Marmion answered that the application identifies five of the criteria that he believes the application meets, and the staff recommendation agrees with four of them. The one they did not show the findings on is Criteria C, and he felt the staff s recommendation was appropriate since it was not the designer or the architect that was significant. The four criteria that both he and the staff believe the application meets are a, b, d and e. Commissioner LeWarne said he believes one thing is lacking in the application because it does not state that the structure housed many City offices. It was, in effect, the City Hall of Edmonds for a substantial period of time. He suggested that this be added as an addition to the application under Section D. The remainder of the Commission and the staff agreed. Vice Chair Arnold inquired if it would be appropriate for the Commission to suggest changes and additions to the application during the designation review hearing. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. Commissioner Waite said he feels it is important to do so because the document is probably going to be the foundation for something in the future if a walking tour, a map or other type of information about the collective historic buildings in Edmonds is ever done. Although this might be tedious, it is also important. However, he questioned when would be the appropriate time for the Commission to make these changes or additions. Council Member Plunkett advised that the Commission's conclusion and recommendation could be based upon their additional criteria, conditions, and amendments, etc. Then the application would move through the remainder of the process with those changes included. Commissioner Marmion referred to Item 9 on the last page of the application, prior to the photo attachments. He explained that rather than changing the application, the Commission could approve the application, and then add any other information that needs to be part of the record in Section 9 as part of the "comments" section. The remainder of the Commission concurred. Mr. Chave said the Commission's final motion could indicate any additional items they feel are important. In addition, the minutes will be forwarded to the City Council as part of the record. Because there were no more questions for the applicant or the staff, the Commission began their deliberation. Commissioner Waite said that, at some point in time, the Commission would like each applicant to have a plaque. He questioned who would pay for this. He also questioned whether they need to go backwards and make that part of the process. They also need to inquire if the Commission can use photographs of the buildings in their promotional materials. The Commission agreed that the Incentives Subcommittee should address this later. Vice Chair Arnold inquired if a motion is necessary to begin the deliberation process. Council Member Plunkett explained that as the Commission moves into deliberations, the Commissioners are free to express their opinion and/or somewhere along the line make a motion. The Chair can have everyone express his or her opinion and then call for a motion. Or in the process of deliberations, somebody could make a motion. Discussion can take place without a motion on the table. Commissioner LeWarne said he is not entirely sure that he agrees that the application meets Criteria 4e. He said he believes this criteria means that someone lived or worked in the building or had a direct association with the building rather than being a philanthropist who spent a lot of money around the country and this is one of the places he put his money. He said he wouldn't vote against the application on those grounds, but if this were the only criteria the application could meet, he is not sure whether or not he would vote in favor of it. He said that building is not really associated with Andrew Carnegie in the sense that he thinks that a building being designated should be associated with the individual. Commissioner LeWarne said that conceivably, the Commission could make the case that the building meets that criteria on the basis of one or two prominent mayors of the community. Commissioner Marmion said he believes part of the significance of this structure is that it is one of the few remaining buildings that were constructed by the Carnegie Foundation. Commissioner LeWarne said that if he felt strongly about this issue, he could make a motion to approve the application, but exclude the particular criteria that he disagrees with. However, he will not do so in this situation. Vice Chair Arnold suggested that these issues could be addressed in the comment section. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 13, 2003 Page 6 COMMISSIONER LEWARNE MOVED THAT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE COUNCIL THAT THE EDMONDS MUSEUM (THE FORMER CARNEGIE LIBRARY) BE PLACED ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES WITH THE PROVISO THAT THE COMMISSION ALSO NOTE THAT IT SERVED AS, IN EFFECT, THE CITY HALL FOR MANY DECADES. COMMISSIONER WAITE SECONDED THE MOTION. Vice Chair Arnold pointed out that there are two amendments being proposed for the application. One is that a statement regarding the building being used as the Edmonds City Hall be added in the comments section. The other amendment is that the application is being put forth by the applicant for the exterior of the building only. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Since Commissioner Marmion put together the application, Commissioner LeWarne asked him to provide comments as to how well the form worked. Commissioner Marmion said that with the exception of a statement explaining what part the applicant is requesting the significance to be reviewed on, the application was well designed. He said he liked the format provided by staff because it provides brief information on each of the eleven criteria that must be met. Commissioner LeWarne agreed that the application is clear and easy to read —much more so than the National application. Mr. Chave said the intent is to make the application easy for the Commission to understand, but also easy for the staff to do. Mr. Chave pointed out that staff would be very reliant upon how good a job the applicant does with putting the information together. Staff would try to impress this upon future applicants. Chair Marmion referred the Commission to the draft process for reviewing applications. He noted that once the Commission has held a hearing and moved to accept the item, the bylaws state that the next step would be a Commission report that would come from the staff. Then the applicant would be notified of the Commission's recommendation. If the Commission recommends denial, the applicant would have the option of appealing the Commission's decision to the City Council. If the Commission recommends acceptance of the application, they must obtain the owner's written consent for inclusion on the register before the application goes forward to the City Council. The City Council can either reject or concur with the Commission's recommendation. If they concur, an ordinance would be drafted and presented to the City Council for final approval on their consent agenda. Once the Council approves the ordinance, the applicant and owner would be notified, and the Development Services Department would be notified to add the historic register designation to the parcel. The Commission would have the responsibility of filing the information with the State Historic Register Data Base. Council Member Plunkett inquired how the owner or applicant would be notified of the Commission's recommendation and the City Council's final decision. Mr. Chave said that, typically, the owner would know about an application prior to the Commission's hearing. If they were not in attendance at the hearing, they would also be notified of the City Council hearing. Therefore, they would also be informed of the Commission's recommendation to the City Council, since this would be included on the notice. If the Commission recommends approval and the owner does not consent, the application would be stopped. Chair Marmion inquired if there is a time limit for which the owner must give his/her consent before the Commission's recommendation to the City Council expires. Mr. Chave noted that the code only requires that the City obtain the owner's consent before putting a property on the register. It was not specific about how this should be done. Mr. Chave said the box on the application titled "obtained owner's consent" is misleading because the Commission will send the application to the City Council with or without their consent. However, the City Council will be interested in whether or not the owner is consenting. Commissioner Marmion expressed his belief that they need to have a checkbox or another method to let the City Council know whether the owner has consented or not, since they cannot approve it without this consent. Mr. Chave clarified that the City Council could approve the application saying that it is eligible for listing. The owner could then decide whether or not he wants to take advantage of the listing. Mr. Chave explained that the Commission's recommendation would get forwarded directly to the City Council. If the City Council determines that the property is eligible, they would direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance. However, the ordinance would not come back to the Council for final approval until the owner has offered his/her consent. If the owner never offers consent, the final ordinance would never come back before the City Council for final approval. He said that while the City Council will be very interested in whether the owner wants the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 13, 2003 Page 7 designation or not, it doesn't necessarily have to influence their decision. All their decision is related to is whether or not the property is eligible. Commissioner Marmion said the way he reads the code is that, if the Commission finds that the nominated property is eligible for the register of historic places, the Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council that the property be listed in the register with owner's consent. However, it is not clear whether or not the owner's consent must accompany the Commission's recommendation to the Council. Mr. Chave agreed that it is not clear. It makes sense to him that at the first meeting the City Council could decide whether or not a nomination is eligible. Then if the owner wants to be listed they should come back with their consent and the City Council could then approve an ordinance. Commissioner Waite suggested that perhaps the City Council process could be expedited if the owner has already offered his approval. Ms. Campbell pointed out that an ordinance would still have to be written up for the City Council's approval. Mr. Chave said while this could be expedited, he questioned the reason for doing so. If there were some urgency to the application, perhaps they could accomplish it all at the first meeting before the City Council. Commissioner Marmion advised that the next step for the application that was just considered by the Commission would be notification of the applicant and owner, which could be done by sending notification of the hearing before the City Council. b. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Chair Marmion distributed the time sheets for the Commission's use to keep track of their time for grant funding purposes Mr. Chave asked that the Commission turn in their time sheets at every meeting. c. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS a. Administrative Subcommittee Report Commissioner LeWarne said that after reading the minutes, he learned that the Commission had expected him to forward each of them a copy of the grant application that he took to the Council's Lodging Tax Committee. He apologized for not doing this, and reported that his presentation before the Council's Lodging Tax Committee went well. Council Member Plunkett reported that the Commission did not receive this grant funding. The people who got grants were the same people who got them before. However, there is a change on the committee, and there will be a different leader on the committee in the future. He encouraged the Commission to apply again next year. He said he heard that the committee found the Commission's application thorough, and perhaps even more so than most of the others. b. Communications Subcommittee Report Commissioner Kindness inquired if today's designation review hearing should be announced to the press. Chair Marmion said it should be announced as the first nomination that has been recommended for listing. Commissioner Kindness inquired if it would be useful to advertise the process for nomination in the newspaper. Chair Marmion said this would be placed on the web page, so the newspaper article could refer people to that site. Commissioner Kindness said she and Commissioner Arnold are working on the tourism brochure, but she has not received any feedback from the Commissioners regarding the ideas that were provided for the tour. She said she would like to go to Old Mill Town to get some history of the Yost Garage, etc. She said she included the Chamber Building, the Centennial Plaza, then went down to the waterfront near Brackett's Landing and Fifth Avenue, etc. While this is a very thumbnail sketch of a walking tour, she would appreciate feedback from the rest of the Commissioners. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 13, 2003 Page 8 Chair Marmion inquired what direction the Commission wants to go with their brochure now that they know they did not receive grant funding for the project. Council Member Plunkett said they still must provide something in writing from the Commission. Chair Marmion agreed that a brochure is necessary, but perhaps it should not be tailored for tourism since they did not receive grant funding. The Commission agreed that the Communications Subcommittee should focus on the other brochure that was related more to the procedures. Commissioner Arnold said he checked with Edmonds/Woodway High School regarding their help in producing a video for the Commission. He said he would also contact Edmonds Community College. Council Member Plunkett said there is a new Councilmember named Maury Moore, who used to work with NBC. She has discussed with him the option of setting up a Council Committee to start looking at establishing some policies for using the television opportunities. He said that if this committee were created, the Commission would have her and the Council Committee as a resource to start working together on this issue. Some Council Members would also like to more fully utilize the public television opportunities. If a committee is formed, Council Member Plunkett said he would suggest that Commissioner Arnold or Commissioner Kindness be part of it. Commissioner Arnold suggested that perhaps he should also contact Jack O Hare about this issue. C. Historic Register Subcommittee Report Chair Marmion said the Historic Register Subcommittee would clean up the flow chart for the designation review process and keep working through the process as the application goes to the City Council. Once this has been completed, they should focus on the grant effort for the survey that will be done next year. Council Member Plunkett recalled that another nomination application was supposed to come before the Commission within the next few months. He asked if staff has heard anything further about the status of the nomination for the church. Ms. Campbell said she has not heard anything additional about this application. She said staff has talked to her about needing more information, but her husband has been sick and she has had a difficult time getting things in. Chair Marmion encouraged other Commission Members to consider submitting nominations for historic structures within the City as part of their role as advocates for historic preservation. d. Incentives Subcommittee Report Council Member Plunkett recalled that Commissioner Waite and he had asked Jeannine Graf to put together a memorandum in regards to the rehabilitation codes, and this was included in the Commission's packets. Both she and Mr. Bowman did a lot of work to prepare this information. The main incentives that they haven't concentrated enough on, but are starting to with the staff s help, are rehabilitation incentives. These are really the key because the buildings have to be economically viable to stay reasonably intact. Commissioner Waite said that after he meets with Commissioner Baker to digest all of this information, they could schedule a meeting with Ms. Graf. Ms. Graf explained that she was tasked with researching the existing uniform building codes. They also looked at the Port Townsend resolution, since they are one of the leaders in this effort. Commissioner Waite said there are a lot of other jurisdictions that are utilizing rehabilitation incentives. Ms. Graf said the Port Townsend resolution references a lot of the Federal rehabilitation codes and allow the building official to look at specific sections that may help an individual building in getting some relief on some of the codes in order to make it economically viable. Ms. Graf said the staff feels that the City's code under the historic preservation section gives staff enough leeway to help a designated historic building (and that is the key that it has to be designated by the Commission) by offering some relief when remodeling and rehabilitation occurs. The staff believes the current code has that flexibility. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 13, 2003 Page 9 Chair Marmion clarified that staff is recommending that the federal guidelines not be adopted. However, they do recommend adoption of the Washington State Historic Building Code, which is not currently adopted. Ms. Graf answered affirmatively. She agreed that the State code must be updated since it hasn't been updated since 1991, and it is likely the State will consider these updates over the next year. Commissioner Arnold clarified that the last recommendation in the memorandum is that the staff will draft written policies for the Commissions' review for implementing the suggested recommendations. He noted that one of the recommended policies is that pre -approval by the Historic Preservation Commission be required prior to the building permit being submitted. He said he is not familiar with the process, but he questioned if this would make it worse instead of better since the person trying to get a building permit would have to wait for the Commission to get involved. Ms. Graf said this policy came from Port Townsend's policies, and the intent was to help the building official understand what part of the building is historic and should not be touched. She said it is important for the Commission to designate the portion or element of the building that is historic. She explained that the City requires a pre -application meeting for development applications. These meetings take place every Wednesday. For development applications that involve historic structures, the pre -application review could be held on a Wednesday, and the Commission could review the application the next day at their regular meeting. This would only result in a one -day delay. Chair Marmion said the Commission review would result in a type of pre -amble to go in a Certificate of Appropriateness. It is important for the Commission to be notified of projects to make sure they are heading the right way before they do the formal review of the Certificate of Appropriateness. The code would require that the owner must have the Certificate of Appropriateness in place before they start the work, but this does not necessarily have to be available before the permit can be issued. Commissioner Waite inquired why staff is not recommending that the Federal Guidelines be adopted. Ms. Graf answered that no other jurisdiction in the State has adopted the Federal Guidelines, and Edmonds is gun shy about being the first. They are concerned that by adopting Federal Guidelines, rather than using the entire guidelines, people will want to pick and choose sections that benefit their particular project. Staff is concerned that this could create a conflict with other codes. She emphasized that State Codes are always more restrictive than the Federal Codes. Commissioner Waite clarified that an applicant could come in with the Federal Guidelines and try to alternate materials. Ms. Graf said there is a State Building Code section that would allow them to make that request. However, they would have to show that their alternative would be equivalent in suitability for fire, sanitation, structural stability, etc. Now that the staff has outlined steps they will do as part of their recommended code changes, Chair Marmion inquired if the Commission needs to pursue drafting an ordinance to adopt the code. Council Member Plunkett said he was under the impression that the Incentives Subcommittee would work with staff to come back with a recommendation for the Commission's consideration. Commissioner Waite agreed that the Incentives Subcommittee needs more time to work out the details. While there is no rush, he noted that it does take quite a while to get code amendments through the process. d. NEW BUSINESS Chair Marmion said the Commission needs to know the term expiration dates of the Commission Members. Ms. Campbell referred to a one -page document that was prepared by the staff to identify the term expiration date for each of the Commissioners. She said this document was provided in each of the Commissioners' binders. Chair Marmion said he would like to include this information on the Commission's website. He noted that the terms for Commissioners Kindness and Arnold expire in June of 2004. e. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Mr. Chave referred to the staff report that was prepared for the designation review and suggested that the Commissioners provide comments for how the document could be improved. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 13, 2003 Page 10 f. REVIEW OF NEXT MEETING AGENDA The Commission did not discuss any specific items that would be scheduled on the Commission's next agenda. g. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Marmion said he appreciated everyone's patience as they worked through their first design review hearing. This is another item to add to their accomplishments. h. HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEMBER COMMENTS Commissioner Kindness thanked the staff for doing such a great job on the staff presentation for the designation review. Commissioner Arnold expressed his thanks to everyone involved in putting together the application. i. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to address, the Commission adjourned at 5:09 p.m. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes November 13, 2003 Page 11