2004-05-13 Historic Preservation Commission MinutesHISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES
May 13, 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 — 5t1i Avenue North.
PRESENT
Gregg Arnold, Chair
Stephen Waite, Vice Chair
Darrell Marmion
Ed Baker
Barbara Kindness
Michael Plunkett
ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
Chuck LeWarne (Excused) Star Campbell, Planner
2. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as presented.
3. READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the May 13d' Minutes was tabled until the June 101 Meeting.
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
There was no unfinished business scheduled on the agenda.
7. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
a. Administrative Subcommittee Report
Status Report on Grant Requests
Council Member Plunkett advised that Commissioner LeWarne is continuing his work on the grant applications: one to the
State and the other a reapplication to the Motel/Hotel Lodging Tax Advisory Committee.
b. Communications Subcommittee Report
Status Report on Public Forum/Celebration
Since she was not at the last meeting, Commissioner Kindness inquired if the Commission discussed the concept of a public
forum/celebration further. Chair Arnold answered that this issue was not addressed at the last meeting.
Commissioner Kindness recalled that the last time the Commission discussed the public forum/celebration concept, they
agreed to wait until they had some significant topic to have a public forum about. The Commission agreed to wait to
schedule a date for the public forum/celebration until there was a significant event that could be the focus of the activity.
Status Report on Commission Brochure
Chair Arnold reported that the Historic Preservation Commission Brochure has been completed, and he has worked with Ms.
Campbell to make in-house copies to forward to the local newspapers. Some copies could be printed in house and made
available for distribution between now and the time the brochure is professionally printed if grant funding is procured. The
Commission agreed that some copies of the brochure should be printed in house immediately.
Council Member Plunkett commended the people who worked hard to prepare the brochure, particularly Chair Arnold who
put together all of the ideas on paper for the Commission to review. He added that the brochure is a great addition to the
Historic Preservation Commission's program.
Status Report on the Channel 21 Video
Chair Arnold reported that the videotape has been completed, but they did experience a bit of a challenge getting access to
the original master copy of the video that Nathan Proudfoot put together. He reminded the Commission of their decision to
run his video in between the two showings of the Commission's new video on Channel 21. Hopefully, the program will be
up and running within the next few days.
Commissioner Waite suggested that the Commission forward something to Mr. Proudfoot, at least in writing, acknowledging
the Commission's thanks for the use of his video. Because he is a student, it was suggested that a formal letter from the
Commission be sent to the school he is attending so that it could be placed in his student file. The Commission directed the
Communications Subcommittee to forward an appropriate acknowledgement as discussed.
Council Member Plunkett inquired if Chair Arnold has viewed the completed video. Chair Arnold answered that he has
viewed the video and the changes that were agreed to at the last Commission meeting were all made. In addition, the music
and the new voice over were added.
The Commission agreed that the Communications Subcommittee should also send a letter acknowledging the Commission's
thanks for the services provided by the Edmonds Community College staff and students to produce the videotape.
Chair Arnold advised that the Commission would receive additional copies of the presentation in both DVD and Videotape
format, and the Commission must reimburse the Edmonds Community College for ten blank DVD's. Ms. Campbell
suggested that the City pick up this cost.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
May 13, 2004 Page 2
Chair Arnold recalled that at the last meeting the Commission discussed the idea of providing a tagline on the video
presentation. The Commission agreed that this idea was discussed, but the issue was never resolved. Chair Arnold said that,
although he believes taglines are important, he wanted to get the video produced as quickly as possible and the tagline was
not a critical component. Since the video and the brochure have already been completed, the Commission agreed to table the
issue of tagline and resolve it the next time they produce something. They were not in favor of making changes to the
videotape now. With the brochure, the Commission agreed that minor text changes could be made at any time because the
document is a PDF file.
Commissioner Waite recalled that he previously suggested two different taglines for the brochure. One suggestion he made
was "The Future is Our Past." Commissioner Kindness indicated that she liked that tagline. Council Member Plunkett
agreed and added that this tagline would be forward looking.
Commissioner Kindness reported that the Historic Preservation Commission Meeting was formally advertised in THE
EDMONDS BEACON on Page 10 in the section titled, `Around the Town. " Ms. Campbell noted that the phone number
included on the agenda announcement was incorrect and should be changed for next month.
Commissioner Kindness noted that her daytime phone number should be updated on the Commission Member roster that is
maintained by the staff.
Commissioner Kindness said she has already notified Mayor Haakenson that she would like to continue as a Commissioner.
She noted that Chair Arnold's term is up in June, as well. She suggested that he contact the Mayor regarding his intent.
C. Historic Register Subcommittee Report
Status Report on Baptist Church and Masonic Hall
Commissioner Marmion reported that he has not heard anything new on either the Baptist Church or the Masonic Hall.
However, he did not pursue the issues, either. He recalled that the applicant for the Baptist Church was sent to gather more
information. Ms. Campbell said she has not heard anything further from this applicant.
Commissioner Marmion said that over the last month he has been putting together information for the consultant who is
doing the survey on behalf of the Commission. Most of the information has been gathered and will be put on a CD. The CD,
along with all of the information from the Advisory Board, would be forwarded to the consultant.
Council Member Plunkett said he contacted Mrs. Hanby, the applicant for the Baptist Church, a few weeks ago, but she has
not returned his call. He suggested that her reasons for not completing the application are likely personal. As far as he can
tell, she knows what she needs to do. He said he also contacted the Masonic Temple again, and they indicated they still have
not decided.
The Commission discussed whether or not they should offer to help the applicant for the Baptist Church provide the missing
pieces for the application. Ms. Campbell reviewed that the applicant still needs to identify the historic features of the church
and what has changed over time. The Commission agreed that if the applicant were the owner, it would be more worthwhile
for the Commission to provide assistance. However, they have limited resources. Ms. Campbell reminded the Commission
that Commissioner Marmion prepared the application for the Museum, and any of the Commissioners could do the same for
other historic buildings in the City, including the Baptist Church. Commissioner Marmion indicated that he visited the
Masonic Hall and found that an application for the historic register would have to be based on the fagade rather than the
complete building. He said he would pursue this application during the next month, after Council Member Plunkett provides
him with contact information. They agreed that it would be important for the Historic Register Subcommittee to find out if
the local congregation owns the church or if the national group owns it.
The Commission briefly discussed the current situation that exists related to the Baptist Church application. It was noted that
while the membership is not necessarily opposed to having the church identified as eligible for the Edmonds Register of
Historic Places, there are some members who do not want to take advantage of the opportunity to actually place the church
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
May 13, 2004 Page 3
on the register. While they do not disagree that their building would be eligible, some are not anxious to take the next step.
Commissioner Marmion suggested that it is important for applicants to understand that just because they are identified as
eligible for the register, does not mean they would be boxed into some corner. Council Member Plunkett also pointed out the
long history of churches not wanting to get on the registers because of their desire to completely separate church and state.
He noted that churches are independent in many ways.
Possible Ideas for an Incentive to Encourage the Construction of Replica Buildings
Commissioner Marmion reported that he attended a City Council Meeting at which staff provided a slide presentation on old
buildings in Edmonds. The presentation illustrated how buildings use to be built and how they are being built now. He
suggested that perhaps an incentive that would be easy to implement would be tallowing some kind of relief from building
code requirements or the variance process if a developer wants to build an adequate replica of a historic structure that no
longer exists. He noted that the Historic Preservation Commission's Selection Criteria would allow this, but only if it were
built on the original site. He suggested that the Incentives Subcommittee provide feedback as to whether this is something
they should pursue. He said he would request feedback from the State as to whether the Certified Local Government Criteria
could be changed to allow this type of incentive.
d. Incentives Subcommittee Reuort
Status Report on the Impact of Non -Conforming Provisions on Historic Preservation
Commissioner Waite reported that he attended the last Edmonds Planning Board Meeting at which they were holding a
public hearing on the proposed amendment to ECDC 17.40.020(C) to allow buildings on the Edmonds Register of Historic
Places to qualify as historic buildings for restoration under the City's non -conforming rule. The Planning Board forwarded
the amendment to the City Council with a recommendation for approval.
Commissioner Waite said that in addition to speaking before the Planning Board in support of the proposed amendment to
ECDC 17.40.020(C), he also provided his comments regarding the letter that was prepared by Scott Snyder, the Edmonds
City Attorney. The subject of this letter was the City's current non -conforming use provisions. Much of the letter was
related to non -conforming buildings. Commissioner Waite explained to the Planning Board that one of the criteria for
deciding if a building is historic or not is if it is more than 50 years old. Therefore, non -conforming buildings that are less
than 50 years old cannot be placed on the register. He asked that the Planning Board consider the value of preserving these
buildings, as well.
Commissioner Waite advised that Mr. Snyder's letter indicates that non -conforming uses and buildings are not favored in the
City and zoning restrictions are strictly applied and interpreted in order to bring about their eventual abatement. His letter
stated that, in practical terms, that means that the use of non -conforming buildings, as well as remodeling or reconstruction of
non -conforming buildings are very purposefully limited. Owners are encouraged by the code to replace these non-
conforming buildings with structures that fully comply with the new zoning codes. Commissioner Waite said he agrees with
the City Attorney that the intent of the existing provisions is to eliminate all non -conforming buildings. Therefore, the stock
of future historic structures is being continually depleted before the structures can meet the 50-year age requirement.
Commissioner Waite suggested that the Commission discuss options for protecting structures that are less than 50 years old.
Commissioner Marmion noted that the criteria allows the Commission to place a property that is less than 50 years old on the
Register if the Commission deems that it has historic importance. Commissioner Waite questioned what criteria the
Commission would use to justify their decision to include a structure that is less than 50 years old on the register.
Commissioner Waite expressed his desire that the City eliminate their rules and regulations that apply to non -conforming
structures altogether. Even buildings that are ten or fifteen years old represent the fabric and evolution of the City. If
significant changes are made to the codes, many of these buildings could become non -conforming, yet there would be
nothing on the books to protect them.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
May 13, 2004 Page 4
Council Member Plunkett noted that in his letter, City Attorney Snyder made reference to what the non -conforming section
of the code is for. The very premise is a contradiction to what the Historic Preservation Commission is trying to do. He said
City Attorney Snyder's letter also made reference to the concept of homogenizing the non -conforming code with the intent of
getting rid of everything that is current and the same. That goes against the purpose of the Commission.
Commissioner Waite pointed out that City Attorney Snyder's letter further stated that the current provisions significantly
reduce the owner's ability to make economic use of the structure and are designed to encourage non -conforming buildings to
be torn down. City Attorney Snyder believes this impacts historic preservation in two ways. First, historic building
provisions prohibit a building from being moved, and with respect to certain uses, they prohibit a change in use of a structure.
Second, there are many structures in the City which, while not truly historic as defined in the ordinance, represent a type of
buildings that helps create a neighborhood feel and an ambiance in the City or which in time could become historic. City
Attorney Snyder pointed out that his main purpose in suggesting a review of the non -conforming use provisions was to fill in
the gap below the threshold set by the historic preservation ordinance.
Chair Arnold inquired if the non -conforming ordinance is a State requirement or if the City could choose to have one or not.
Council Member Plunkett suggested that perhaps the Incentives Subcommittee should approach the staff with a request that
they explore the purpose for having the non -conforming provisions and what the consequences of eliminating them would be.
Ms. Campbell said the non -conforming ordinance represents a trend in planning. The intent was not to have everything look
the same, but the idea was that eventually everything would comply with the current codes. The purpose of the non-
conforming ordinance was to correct blighted areas, bring things into the current zones where they are allowed, etc.
Ms. Campbell agreed that City Attorney Snyder made some good points about how non -conforming regulations are now
starting to be looked at as a method of homogenizing the neighborhoods. It is important for the City to consider whether or
not this is what they want. She said she was under the understanding that the non -conforming regulations have been placed
on the Planning Board's extended agenda for review in the near future. Council Member Plunkett pointed out that this issue
has been on the Planning Board's extended agenda since the Commission sent it to them two years ago with a request that
they review them. However, they have not moved forward with their review. He suggested that the Incentives
Subcommittee forward a letter to the Planning Board asking them to seriously consider this issue. Ms. Campbell said she
would also check with Mr. Chave to find out what the status of this item is.
Commissioner Waite advised that when he attended the Planning Board's public hearing on the proposed ECDC amendment
related to historic preservation, one of the Planning Board Members suggested that the Historic Preservation Commission
should feel free to present some proposed changes to the Board for consideration. He suggested that Ms. Campbell contact
Mr. Chave to find out if this issue is even a priority to the Planning Board. Commissioner Marmion said he believes the
Commission has the responsibility to forward a recommendation to the Planning Board for their consideration. That is one of
their functions as the Historic Preservation Commission. Council Member Plunkett agreed that it would be appropriate for
the Commission to create the ideas as opposed to asking the Planning Board to do it. Council Member Plunkett suggested
that a discussion with both Mr. Chave and perhaps City Attorney Snyder would be appropriate to come up with a
recommended proposal to forward to the Board. Commissioner Marmion agreed and said it is important for the Commission
to let the Planning Board know that this is an important issue.
Commissioner Waite inquired if staff could identify examples throughout the City of non -conforming buildings. Ms.
Campbell said there are numerous different kinds of non -conforming situations. Almost any building that is more than five
or ten years old will be non -conforming in some aspects. She reviewed one situation related to a non -conforming use in
which a rezone went through for an auto repair shop in a single-family zone. The site was ideal for a community business
zone, so it was rezoned. However, Ms. Campbell suggested that the Commission is probably more interested in considering
non -conforming issues such as height, setback, etc.
The Commission discussed possible scenarios that could take place if the non -conforming section of the code were
eliminated. Council Member Plunkett advised that when he reviewed this issue with Mr. Chave, he indicated that some of
the more significant non-conformance issues are related to height and parking. The issues related to parking have now been
resolved.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
May 13, 2004 Page 5
Ms. Campbell said she understands the Commission's concerns related to the non -conforming chapter, and perhaps changes
are necessary. However, she said she does not see the real historic link because there is a provision in the non -conforming
chapter that allows the maintenance, continuation and restoration of non -conforming buildings that are on the Edmonds
Register. Commissioner Waite agreed that these provisions would protect the structures that are identified on the Register,
but his concern is for the structures that are approaching their historic timeframe. Ms. Campbell clarified that unless
someone wants to change a non -conforming structure significantly, they can be maintained and continue to exist. You can
add on to a non -conforming building, as long as the new part conforms with the existing code requirements.
Commissioner Marmion suggested that the Commission come up with a couple of good examples to illustrate how the non-
conforming provisions could become an issue for historic preservation. Commissioner Waite noted that City Attorney
Snyder referred to the example of the many small residential homes located on small original town lots in the Sunset Avenue
area. He suggested that if the intent of the non -conforming use ordinance is carried out, these structures would eventually be
removed, opening the neighborhood up to what he would think of as the "Mercer Island mega house problem" where view
lots are developed setback line to setback line to the maximum of the height ordinance. In the case of an existing home built
on two single-family lots, the City could end up losing quaint neighborhood structures which, while not historic, contribute to
the ambiance of the neighborhood. City Attorney Snyder suggested that allowing minimum remodeling could potentially
preserve this housing stock. Commissioner Marmion said he sees this example as more of a planning issue than a historic
preservation issue. City Attorney Snyder is suggesting that the City might want to keep this mix of small, non -conforming
lots because they add character to the neighborhood.
Chair Arnold summarized the Commission's desire for the Incentives Subcommittee to continue to move this issue forward.
This item could be added on the June agenda for further discussion. Until that time, the Incentives Subcommittee could come
up with some good examples to illustrate their concerns. Commissioner Waite agreed that since the City Attorney has
identified this as an important issue, the Commission should work to resolve their concerns.
Council Member Plunkett suggested that the issues surrounding the area along Sunset Avenue could also be related to
zoning. He pointed out that this is the one place in the City where a historic district could be formed. He suggested that this
option should be placed on a future agenda for further discussion.
Council Member Plunkett pointed out that the Commission has had some success in regard to creating incentives for historic
structures to remain economically viable. For example, the parking requirements were changed for non -conforming
buildings and the continued use of many existing buildings became more viable. Making the buildings economically viable
is the best way to preserve historic structures.
User Friendly Version of Historic Preservation Permitting Policies
Chair Arnold summarized that, as per previous Commission discussion, there would be three pamphlets for the public. The
objective of the first would be to get property owners interested in registering their properties and to get citizens to be
proselytizers for historic preservation. The objective of the second document would be directed towards people who are
interested in registering their site, and it would tell them how to do it. The third document would describe how a property
owner could take advantage of being registered. The objective would be to provide information to property owners who are
already on the register, and that was the objective of the piece that Ms. Graff put together. The Commission is responsible
for creating the first and second pieces. He questioned how the Commission wanted to proceed with the project.
Council Member Plunkett recalled that Ms. Graff made great effort in putting together a handout that could be distributed at
the Planning Department. However, the Commission's concern was that the process appeared frightening, and they agreed
that a more user-friendly document should be created.
Commissioner Waite said Ms. Graff would be including an amendment to adopt the Washington State Historic Code as part
of the code amendments that would be considered later in the year. Once this is adopted, it will be important to have
information available for interested citizens. He said that the last time the Commission worked on the user-friendly version,
there was some confusion between the document that would get owners interested in registering their properties and the
document that would provide direction about how to go about getting on the register.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
May 13, 2004 Page 6
Commissioner Kindness said she took notes during the Commission's last discussion on this issue. She said she could
provide the notes that the Incentives Subcommittee could use to prepare the final document. Commissioner Waite agreed
that he would work with Commissioner Kindness on this effort. He also asked that Ms. Campbell provide her comments and
recommendations.
Ms. Campbell expressed her concern that while removing the intimidation factor from the document provided by Ms. Graff,
the Commission also removed some of the necessary content. Now the document doesn't really tell people what they need to
know. She suggested that another handout be prepared describing how to get on the register and the benefits of being on the
register, etc. This could be a user-friendly document, but it must be as useful as possible for someone who wants to make a
change. Commissioner Kindness agreed that, although the document may be considered "boring" to read, it needs to include
all of the necessary information.
Chair Arnold reminded the Commission that the objective of the first document is to get property owners to look into
registering their properties and to get citizens to become proselytizers. If someone requests this document, the City should
also provide the second document describing the steps necessary in order to get a property registered. Both of these
documents should be simple and not intimidating. The third document should be more detailed and describe exactly how to
get things done. He suggested that the document prepared by Ms. Graff could be used as the third document, as long as all of
the "fluff ' was edited out. Perhaps a cover page could be provided on the third document to provide some type of flow chart
or outline of the process.
Commissioner Kindness said she would also like to add an introductory paragraph to the third document before all of the
steps are outlined in detail. The introductory paragraph could provide a brief, bulleted list outlining the process for getting a
building registered. The remaining pages could provide more detail to further describe each of the bullets. Council Member
Plunkett agreed this would be appropriate. However, it is important that the cover page and introductory paragraph use the
same language and bullets as the more detailed information that would follow.
The Commission directed the Incentives Subcommittee to write an introductory statement that provides a bulleted list of the
process as outlined in the document prepared by staff.
Commissioner Waite said that in addition to providing information for people interested in getting on the Register, the
purpose of the user-friendly document would be to promote historic preservation throughout the community. The user-
friendly document could be used as a marketing tool that could be handed out by the Planning Department staff. If people
want more detailed information, they could request the more detailed document. The Commission agreed that perhaps the
only two documents necessary are the user-friendly version of the document prepared by Ms. Graff and the more detailed
document, itself.
Council Member Plunkett recalled that the Commission was concerned that the document prepared by Ms. Graff could be too
intimidating. The cover sheet, in particular was intimidating. The Commission agreed that the cover sheet on Ms. Graff s
document should be eliminated.
Chair Arnold summarized the Commission's desire to eliminate the cover page from the document prepared by Ms. Graff,
but use the other two pages. However, the Commission needs to make sure the "user friendly" document is not missing any
of the necessary details. The Incentives Subcommittee was tasked with preparing these two documents in their final format
for Commission approval.
Commissioner Waite suggested that the Commission request a display area in the Planning Department office that would
allow them to display photos of properties that are on the Register.
COMMISSIONER MARMION MOVED THAT THE MEETING BE EXTENDED TO 5:15 P.M. COMMISSIONER
WAITE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Status Report on Restoration Codes for Registered Buildings
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
May 13, 2004 Page 7
Commissioner Waite said staff has indicated that they would propose an amendment that would adopt the Washington State
Historic Code. He questioned if it would also be appropriate for the Commission to forward a formal letter requesting this
action. Council Member Plunkett said that the issue is coming before the City Council for consideration within the next few
weeks. Any formal letter should be addressed to them. However, he did not feel it would be really necessary. The
remainder of the Commission agreed.
Status Report on Use Codes for Registered Buildings
The Commission agreed that this issue was resolved with the City Council's approval of the code amendments related to the
parking requirements. They also agreed that this item could be removed from the agenda for next month.
8. NEW BUSINESS
Discussion of How to Use "Spokane" Knowledge
Because the meeting had already extended beyond the advertised time, the Commission agreed to table this discussion.
9. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Collection of Time Sheets
Chair Arnold asked that all Commissioners provide their time sheets to staff to identify the time they have spent related to the
historic inventory project.
Feedback from Commission on Preservation Handouts
This item was removed from the agenda.
Non-ConformingStatus
This issue was discussed as part of the Incentives Subcommittee Report
10. REVIEW OF NEXT MEETING'S PROPOSED AGENDA
Chair Arnold reviewed that the June agenda would be very similar to the May agenda. However the status report for use
codes for registered buildings would be deleted and a status report on the non -conforming provisions would be added. The
only item that would be on the Administrative Report agenda item would be the collection of time sheets.
11. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Arnold provided no comments during this portion of the meeting.
12. HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEMBER COMMENTS
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
May 13, 2004 Page 8
Commissioner Marmion said he attended the City Council meeting at which the new parking ordinance was adopted. While
he was not acting as a representative of the Commission, he did provide comments as an interested citizen. He pointed out a
few sections of the new ordinance that were very conducive to historic preservation. However, a situation was later pointed
out to him where the new code actually causes a problem. As per the new ordinance, the City now has a fixed ratio for how
much parking is required for a business, which is 1 space for every 500 square feet of building space. Therefore, a property
owner who wants to convert a 2,000 square foot single-family building that is located in the BC zone to a business use would
have to provide four parking spaces. He said he has already heard of one case where a property has been put at risk because
of the parking requirements. He recalled that when the ordinance was passed, it was intended to get rid of some of the big
parking problems that existed.
Commissioner Marmion suggested that the Commission should forward this concern to the City Council. He said he would
put together some more examples to illustrate the concern for the Commission to consider at the next meeting. Council
Member Plunkett also asked that Commissioner Marmion speak with Mr. Chave or Mr. Bullock in the Planning Department
regarding their opinion.
Commissioner Kindness reported that the property known as the previous Puget Sound Christian College would be under
renovation at the end of 2004. At this time, a capital campaign is in progress. She asked that Commissioners consider
opportunities to put up posters announcing the events that have been planned during the spring and early summer. She said
the Arts Commission provided a grant to the Center for the Arts Committee to put together the poster. Since this is a historic
building, this project is something the Commission should support. She also distributed postcards for the upcoming
Community Concert, which will be held at the site. She said it is exciting to see the community get more involved in being
able to use the building to a greater extent.
Commissioner Marmion said they are doing a great job of preserving a building that was built in the 1920's. However, they
are ignoring the fact that they are tearing down a building that was built just after 1900. He recalled that some concerned
citizens approached the Commission more than a year ago, but there was nothing they could do at that point, and there is
nothing they can do now.
13. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
May 13, 2004 Page 9