Loading...
2004-02-12 Historic Preservation Commission MinutesHISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES February 12, 2004 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 — 5t' Avenue North. PRESENT ABSENT Gregg Arnold, Chair Michael Plunkett Stephen Waite, Vice Chair Darrell Marmion Ed Baker Chuck LeWarne Barbara Kindness 2. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Star Campbell, Planner Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Ms. Campbell noted that Commissioner Baker should be listed on the agenda as a member of the Incentives Subcommittee rather than Commissioner Marmion. As part of the Incentives Subcommittee Report, Chair Arnold added a report on the status of the City adopting the Historic Building Codes. He said he would also like the Commission to discuss the document that was provided by Commissioner Waite at the last meeting regarding the City of Spokane's historic preservation program. In addition, he asked that staff, as part of their Administrative Report, update the Commission on the status of hiring a historic inventory consultant. The Commission approved the agenda as amended. 3. READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER LEWARNE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2003 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER KINDNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The Commission approved the minutes of January 8, 2004 with one minor correction. 4. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE There was no one present in the audience. 5. DESIGNATION REVIEWS There were no designation reviews scheduled on the agenda. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Commissioner Marmion asked that staff provided a status report on the one property that was nominated for the historic register. Has the owner signed his consent? Ms. Campbell said she is not sure on the status of this property, but she would be prepared to provide an update at the Commission's next meeting. 7. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS a. Administrative Subcommittee Reuort Commissioner LeWarne recalled that at the last meeting, Mr. Chave indicated that he would send the Commissioners copies of the advertisement that were placed for the historic inventory consultant position. He said he would like to know more about the qualifications the City sought. Ms. Campbell said she did not receive a copy of the advertisement, either. But she would ask Mr. Chave for a copy and then provide it to each of the Commissioners via email. The City advertises for requests for qualifications from consultants and then there is a certain time period during which consultants can make submissions. In this case, they only received one applicant, so staff had to provide another notice. At this point, there are three applicants. Commissioner LeWarne reminded Ms. Campbell that he volunteered to serve on the committee to interview the consultant candidates. He questioned if a date has been set for the interviews. Ms. Campbell answered that no date has been set for the interview process. b. Communications Subcommittee Reuort Commissioner Kindness reported that articles announcing the new Commission Officers were published in THE HERALD, THE SEATTLE TIMES, THE ENTERPRISE and THE EDMONDS BEACON. Commissioner Waite inquired if the newspaper editors make changes to the articles written by Commissioner Kindness. Commissioner Kindness answered that they sometimes do make slight changes. Commissioner Kindness said she would start work on plans for the public forum the Commission is planning to hold this spring. Chair Arnold reminded the Commission that, as they think about marketing the Historic Preservation Commission, they must keep in mind all of the individual steps the applicant must go through and what role a brochure would play in identifying this process. He distributed copies of the draft brochure, which is nearing its final stages. He asked that the Commission provide any additional comments they might have so he can finalize the document. Chair Arnold said two major changes were made since the last meeting. One was the two new properties that are being featured. The other was to address the advantages to the building owner who would receive federal tax credit on commercial buildings. He spoke with Dave Marty, a local graphic designer, who said he would prepare a final layout for the brochure. The Commission would have an opportunity to do one final proofread, and it should be ready for publication. He urged the Commissioners to provide any of their last minute comments related to the brochure as soon as possible. Commissioner Kindness said she has a number of changes to recommend. First, she suggested that something more zippy be provided on the front of the brochure to entice people to look at it. For instance, she suggested that the outside could say, "It's not too late." Secondly, on the inside she suggested that the phrase, "once the building is on the register, the owner" be changed to "once your building is on the register." She felt this would provide ownership for the person reading the brochure. She said she also made some other grammatical changes such as replacing the word "receive" with "assistance Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 12, 2004 Page 2 with federal tax credits." In addition, she suggested that the language in the section titled, "Requirement" should read, "In order for properties to stay on the register and continue receiving the benefits, significant changes must be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission." She also suggested some language changes to the section titled, "Why" to get away from some of the repetition that existed. Lastly, she suggested that the paragraph that uses the term, "special sense of community" be changed to read, "There is much more to maintaining our quality of life than preserving historic structures, but it is one important thing that we, as citizens, can and must do. The form and texture of our historic buildings make a significant contribution to the "feel" of Edmonds. They demonstrate the different stages in our history since George Brackett founded Edmonds over a century ago." Chair Arnold thanked Commissioner Kindness for her specific comments. He said his goal is to get the brochure completed. He said he has no pride of authorship, and would be happy to accept any of the Commissioners' comments and suggestions. Commissioner LeWarne suggested that the brochure should note that the building known as the library or museum, is the only property in Edmonds that is also on the National Register of Historic Places. He suggested that the word "representative" could be deleted when referencing the "Edmonds -South Snohomish County Historical Society." He said he also made some minor changes that were noted on the document he provided to Chair Arnold. Commissioner Kindness suggested that in the section that describes the notification requirements, the term "contiguous neighbors" should be changed to "surrounding neighbors." Chair Arnold said he would like the Commission to spend time at the meeting talking about the substance of the brochure. He would like to have the recommended grammatical errors sent to him in between meetings so that changes can be made prior to the next meeting. Commissioner Marmion referred to the process section of the brochure. He noted that after the City Council recommends the property for the register, the owner must provide final approval. This final approval was not identified as part of the process in the brochure. Chair Arnold referred to the top line of the brochure and noted that he made a change to the brochure to make it clear that being identified on the historic register is voluntary. He noted that the brochure also makes it clear that once a property is placed on the register of historic places, the law requires the property owner to obtain approval from the Historic Preservation Commission before any changes are made. If properties are changed without approval, the property owner would lose the benefits. Commissioner Waite referred to Item 2 in the section that identifies the advantages to building owners. He clarified that buildings on the historic register cannot receive federal tax credits unless they are on the National Register of Historic Places. Commissioner LeWarne agreed, but noted that a property can receive a federal tax credit if it is identified on either the State or National Register of Historic Places. Chair Arnold said the point of this section is that the Historic Preservation Commission can assist a property owner in getting onto the National and/or the State register. Commissioner Waite suggested that the language in this section be changed to state that the Commission would provide assistance if a property owner chooses to go to the next level. Mr. Chave explained that a local historic preservation commission could act as a clearinghouse assistant in getting properties onto the National Register of Historic Places. Commissioner Marmion said one of the requirements of being a Certified Local Government is that the Commission assist in this effort. Commissioner Waite said the current language tends to imply that if a property is included on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, the property owner is entitled to Federal tax credits. Mr. Chave suggested that this section could be changed to read something like, "Assist in qualifying for the National Register in order to receive Federal tax credits on commercial buildings." Commissioner Marmion recalled that the Commission had originally discussed that the brochure would be done in a mailer type format. Chair Arnold agreed that the Commission did discuss this option, but he questioned if the Commission has any plans to mail the brochure out in mass quantities. If they are only planning to mail out 20 or 30 of the brochures, they could place them in envelopes to mail. Chair Arnold said that creating the brochure language was educational for him in understanding the benefits of historic preservation. He now has a clear idea in his mind about what he can talk to property owners about. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 12, 2004 Page 3 Commissioner Waite recalled a discussion with Frances Chapin at a City Council meeting. She brought up the point that the brochure must attack the downside of historic preservation with a positive statement. Chair Arnold pointed out that the purpose of one of the paragraphs is to get this point across. He questioned if additional changes should be made to make this clear. Mr. Chave suggested that the words, "your commitment" could be substituted for the word "requirement." In other words, by being on the register, a property owner would be committing to do certain things. The remainder of the Commission agreed this would be appropriate language. Commissioner LeWarne referred to the section related to Federal tax credits. He suggested that Items 2 and 3 be reversed to build up from the local to the Federal level. Chair Arnold said that is the order he originally had, but he changed it because he felt Items 1 and 3 would be the most powerful for most people who would read the brochure. In his experience, it is important to always put the strongest points at the beginning and the end. The Commission agreed to reverse Items 2 and 3 as recommended by Commissioner LeWarne. Ms. Campbell suggested that in the area where staff and Commissioner contact information is provided, it should be clear that she is part of the staff and not one of the Commissioners. The Commission discussed whether or not the individual Commissioners' phone numbers should be printed on the brochure. They agreed that rather than including numbers for the individual Commissioners, a number for the official staff contact person should be provided. Staff could then contact the Commissioners as appropriate. Chair Arnold reported that the Channel 21 videotape would be made on March loth at 12:00 p.m. They will be meeting across the street from the library. Any of the Commissioners who are interested can attend. He may be contacting some of the Commissioners requesting their participation at some level. Chair Arnold referred to the Channel 21 storyboard. He said that when a Commissioner provides the introductory comments, he would like to include a statement to the effect that there is now a voluntary program available that provides benefits to owners who preserve the character of historic properties. It is important that this be made clear up front. Also, later in the presentation, he felt it would be important to state that the Commission has the power to place properties on the register, and this would allow the property owner to take advantage of the tax and building code benefits and incentives. But this would be voluntary and not a regulation for property owners. Commissioner LeWarne suggested that rather than using the word "power" the word "authority" would be better. Commissioner Marmion suggested that this statement should make it clear that the Commission has the authority to determine if a property is historically significant. However, it should also be made clear that only the property owner has the power to place the property on the register. Commissioner Marmion suggested that rather than trying to explain things in an attempt to answer the public's fears, it might be good to identify the fears people might have and then explain why these fears are unfounded. Mr. Chave said that instead of using the word "authority" this section could state that the Commission has the responsibility to identify historic structures in the City. Then they could focus on the property owner being the one who must decide whether or not they want to be on the register. Chair Arnold explained that they would likely end up doing three or four takes of each particular scene, and then it will all be put together in the end. Hopefully, the Commission will be able to pick and choose to get the best. He said he appreciates all of the help the Commissioners provided on the language. He said he still has to get approval from all of the owners of buildings that will be featured in the presentation. Chair Arnold noted that since the last meeting, the storyboard was changed to add information about Federal tax credits. He said he would make the same changes in this language that were made in the brochure related to this issue. Commissioner Kindness requested feedback from the Commission regarding a date for the public forum meeting. She said her sense is that it is still too early. Commissioner LeWarne expressed his desire that the public forum be scheduled in conjunction with the first building going on the register. Mr. Chave said a logical time to do the public forum would be after the Commission has received the results of the survey. This would allow them an opportunity to discuss the ideas brought forward during the survey. This presentation could provide a slide show of the general history and theme of the City. He suggested that this could end up attracting more interest from the public than if the forum were to focus only on historic buildings. The Commission concurred. Chair Arnold suggested that perhaps the movie theater facility would be a good location for this type of presentation. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 12, 2004 Page 4 C. Historic Register Subcommittee Report Commissioner Marmion advised that the Historic Register Subcommittee is still working on the last parts of the process to identify the first property on the register. Other than that, they are not working on any other significant projects. Commissioner LeWarne inquired if staff is still anticipating an application from the Baptist Church. Mr. Chave reported that they are still waiting for them to provide organized information. If a Commissioner were to volunteer to help them get their appplication together, it might help speed the process along. Commissioner LeWarne said the owners of the Masonic Hall have also expressed interest in being designated as a historic structure. He said one of the directors told him the structure is owned by a Board of the Masons, but the Odd Fellows us their hall. The Masons are the ones who have expressed an interest in the building being identified on the register. Commissioner Marmion reminded the Commission that the Historic Register Subcommittee's responsibility is to make sure the process is in place for placing properties on the historic register. He said they are about 90 percent finished with this phase. Once applications have gone through the entire process, they can review to find out how well the prescribed process works. Ms. Campbell inquired if the Historic Register Subcommittee would be reviewing the application form again. She noted that the Commission originally adopted the form that was a replica of the State, but it is really long. Commissioner Marmion agreed that is one of the things the Historic Register Subcommittee would review once the entire museum application has gone completely through the process. At that time, they could identify things that did and did not work. Mr. Chave said the museum application has gone through the staff review process, but the Mayor has not signed off on the application. Once he has signed off on the application, staff would create an ordinance and obtain final approval from the property owner. d. Incentives Subcommittee Report Commissioner Baker reported that he and Commissioner Waite met with Janine Graff, the City's Building Official, and she prepared a draft of the historic preservation permitting policies for the Commission's review. He encouraged the Commissioners to review the document and provide comments by the next meeting. Commissioner Baker advised that Ms. Graff is working to prepare a "user friendly" version of the historic preservation permitting policies. Council Member Plunkett has already reviewed the document and made some proposed changes. Once the Commissioners have provided their input, he and Commissioner Waite will work with staff to make the necessary changes. Chair Arnold asked the Commissioners to provide feedback on the document to Commissioner Baker by February 26t''. That way, the Incentives Subcommittee would only have to change the document one time. The Commissioners agreed to provide this information to Commissioner Baker within the next two weeks. Commissioner LeWarne referred to the term "Edmonds Historic and Landmark Buildings" which is used in the draft policies. He inquired if the term "landmark" has a specific meaning. He said the Commission's ordinance does not use the term landmark. He questioned if this term should be used in the policies or not. The Commission decided that rather than use the word "landmark" they would use the word "site." Commissioner Waite said the purpose is to get some enthusiasm and movement towards historic preservation. He said that even the user-friendly version of the policies could be intimidating to a layperson, and Council Member Plunkett has made several changes to improve this situation. He noted that there are numerous user-friendly handouts that have been prepared by the City to summarize and explain different City policies and processes. He suggested that printing the document on Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 12, 2004 Page 5 parchment paper would help it stand out from the other documents that are available at the City. Perhaps they can even capture the attention of people who do not have historic structures. Commissioner Marmion inquired if a property owner would have to have their property listed on the historic register before they could obtain a historic preservation permit. Commissioner Waite answered affirmatively. Commissioner Marmion said this is not clear in the draft. The Commission agreed that the title and language should be changed to make it clear that buildings must be on the historic register in order for the policies to apply. Mr. Chave explained that the user-friendly document was intended to outline the steps that must be followed in order to obtain a permit for historic structures that have been placed on the register. Ms. Campbell said the document should not be the first thing a property owner would pick up when interested in placing their building on the register. This document outlines the benefits and the building permit process for buildings that have already been placed on the register. Ideally, the staff would also provide a front and back page handout outlining how someone would actually make an application. Ms. Campbell said she would try and come up with a supplemental handout for the Commission to review at the next meeting to outline what a property owner must do to place a property on the register. Commissioner Waite suggested that the purpose of the handout prepared by Ms. Graff could be two -fold. First, it could outline what a property owner with property on the register must do in order to obtain a permit. Second, it could provide guidance for property owners who are thinking about placing their property on the register. Mr. Chave suggested that this would not be appropriate. He suggested that the user-friendly document that was prepared by Ms. Graff should focus on providing information for property owners who already have property placed on the register. A separate handout should be prepared to outline the application process Chair Arnold suggested that since the handout would deal with how to take advantage of the special permit process for historical buildings, perhaps this should become the title of the document. The remainder of the Commission concurred. Commissioner Marmion said the document should emphasize that the term "historic building" means a building that is on the historic register. Commissioner Kindness said she felt the draft user-friendly document would be hard for elderly people to read. Mr. Chave suggested that this could be corrected by fading out the photographs more so that the typing would stand out more. Commissioner Waite said the Incentives Committee is also interested in receiving feedback from the Commission as to whether or not the draft policies appear to be too cumbersome. The intent is not to discourage people from putting their properties on the register. If someone has a choice, and they become intimidated by the process, they might hesitate to make application for the register. Chair Arnold summarized that in addition to the user-friendly version of the historic preservation permitting policies, Ms. Campbell has committed to create a document outlining what a property owner would do if they want to get their property on the historic register. He suggested that these documents should be placed on the Commission website that would be created in the near future. The remainder of the Commission concurred. Commissioner Waite recalled that the City Council recently adopted their fee schedule. There was a proposal on the table to charge full fees for pre -application conferences. He questioned if this was adopted. Ms. Campbell said that if an applicant holds a pre -application meeting, they would receive half of the fee back. This policy was adopted in August of 2003. Commissioner Waite said the City Council might want to do the same thing with permits for historic properties. He said the City Council might have a concern about the Commission's proposal to reduce the permit fees for historic structures. Mr. Chave explained that he Commission could propose a special fee to the City Council for historic structures. But the Council would have to make the ultimate decision. Commissioner Waite inquired if the Commission would be in favor of reducing or eliminating the pre -application fee for projects that involve properties identified on the historic register. He suggested that a property owner who places his/her building on the historic register, is providing a community benefit. In his mind, this would justify a reduction or elimination of the fee. The Commission agreed that the Incentives Subcommittee should talk with Council Member Plunkett about the best way to make this recommendation to the City Council. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 12, 2004 Page 6 Commissioner Waite said the Incentives Subcommittee and staff are still working out issues related to the letter that was to be sent to the City Council recommending adoption of the codes. He said he would also provide more information from Ms. Graff about the time lime for adopting the State codes. Mr. Chave said once the Commission knows the date for which the item will be sent to the City Council, they will know the appropriate time to send their letter. Chair Arnold inquired if the Incentives Subcommittee agrees with Ms. Graff that the Commission should recommend approval of the Washington State Historic Building Codes, but not the others. Commissioner Marmion said that if the Commission finds things that they believe will further the cause of historic preservation, it is their responsibility to make this recommendation to the City Council. They do not necessarily have to go through the various City departments. It is up to the City Council to resolve the recommendation based on the existing code and input from the staff. He summarized that the Commission should not stop short on what they think is the proper recommendation. Commissioner Waite agreed, and said that is the approach he is taking with staff. Commissioner Baker said Ms. Graff indicated that she does not want to adopt the National Code, but she was willing to recommend adoption of the State Code. Chair Arnold inquired if there would be any advantage to adopting the National Code, also. Commissioner Waite said there might be advantages, but the City must choose one or the other. Commissioner Waite said a building official in Spokane started a program whereby he was able to get all of the constituents, the building owners and the city staff together to work on historic preservation. The building owners were very appreciative of the building official working with them to address all of issues that came up. This building official has moved to Mercer Island, and Commissioner Waite suggested that he be invited to come to the next Commission meeting and provide his ideas. The City of Spokane's program was successful because of his positive approach. Chair Arnold said he has no concept about the difference between the State and National historic preservation codes, but his guess would be that the State documents would be more applicable. He asked how the Commission could evaluate the two documents and make a decision, regardless of the implementation issues. Commissioner Waite said the state document is very short and needs to be updated. The general consensus is that it is not really very good because it is old. Chair Arnold inquired which document is used by other jurisdictions in the State. Commissioner Waite said most of the other cities have not felt a need to adopt either the State or the National codes. Because of language in the Uniform Building Code, a property owner would be allowed to present a case for using either the State or the National Code. However, they would have to provide evidence to support this request. The Commission agreed that the Incentives Subcommittee should invite the ex -building official from the City of Spokane to a future meeting to share his ideas. Chair Arnold suggested that before inviting a guest speaker, the Commissioners should reread the article that was provided by the Incentives Subcommittee regarding historic preservation in Spokane. He noted that this person talked about getting all of the stakeholders together to work as a team. 8. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business scheduled on the agenda. 9. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Chair Arnold referred to the time sheets that were provided by staff at the meeting. He suggested that the time sheets be available at each meeting so the Commissioners can think back over the past month and capture all of the hours they spent on projects related to the inventory of historic sites. He said it is important that all of the hours are accounted for. 10. REVIEW OF NEXT MEETING PROPOSED AGENDA Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 12, 2004 Page 7 Chair Arnold said he would keep doing a more detailed agenda for each of the categories. In addition to the items on the agenda this month, the next month's agenda would include an update on the status of the library. In addition, the Commission would review the document that will be drafted by Ms. Campbell explaining how a property owner could get on the register. Commissioner Kindness also asked that the Communications Subcommittee provide a report on their progress with the Channel 21 videotape production. 11. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Arnold provided no comments during this portion of the meeting. 12. HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEMBER COMMENTS Commissioner Marmion said he has been attending a lot of meetings over the past few months, including an Architectural Design Board Meeting and a Planning Board Meeting. At the Planning Board meeting he introduced himself as a Commission member, but he did not indicate that he was present to represent the Commission. He reported that the Planning Board has been discussing potential land use changes, and they want to involve, at some point, input from the different Commissions in the City. Commissioner Marmion said he attended an Architectural Design Board Meeting, at which he was asked questions regarding the inventory. They also raised questions that have been brought up by the public about what the Historic Preservation Commission is doing. This was a good forum for him to explain that historic preservation is voluntary. He encouraged other Commissioners to attend and be involved in these types of meetings to let their presence be known. Commissioner Waite inquired when the Planning Board would be taking up the issue of non -conforming uses. Mr. Chave said this has not been scheduled on their agenda at this point. Commissioner Kindness suggested that if the Commission updates or does another video, they should get someone who has been through the process of registering a property to say what a pleasant experience it was. Also, since her term expires in a few months, she approached the Mayor regarding the procedure for reappointment. All a Commissioner has to do is indicate their willingness to serve another term. She encouraged the other two Commissioners whose terms expire to indicate their desire to continue. Mr. Chave advised that the Planning Board would be holding a public hearing on the parking code amendments on March 10'. This is not directly related to historic buildings, only. But it does have a significant impact on downtown buildings, which includes historic buildings. One of the provisions being proposed is that there would no longer be parking requirements for existing buildings. This could potentially have a huge impact on existing buildings that cannot provide a lot of parking. He suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate for a member of the Historic Preservation Commission to testify and describe the impact this would have to historic buildings in the downtown. This meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to address, the Commission adjourned at 4:59 p.m. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes February 12, 2004 Page 8