Loading...
2004-07-08 Historic Preservation Commission MinutesHISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES July 8, 2004 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting of the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission was called to order at 3:47 p.m. in the 3rd Floor Conference Room of City Hall, 121 — 51 Avenue North. PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Stephen Waite, Vice Chair (arrived at 4:00) Gregg Arnold, Chair (excused) Star Campbell, Planner Michael Plunkett Darrell Marmion (excused) Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Ed Baker Chuck LeWarne Barbara Kindness ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES Reading of the minutes was postponed until a quorum was present for approval. REOUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Barbara Chase, 1105 Daley Place, said she is very interested in what the Historic Preservation Commission is trying to do. She said she has a question regarding zoning that was raised by one of the members of her garden club who rents a house on Sunset Avenue. She said she was told the zoning wouldn't allow her to purchase the home because the lot would be too small. She said she believes there are a lot of people who hate to see these small, older homes replaced with large homes and condominiums. She inquired if the City has the ability to grant an exception to the lot size requirement in order to preserve a historic structure. Council Member Plunkett said that if anyone wants to do anything outside of what is permitted, they would need to obtain a variance or a land use changes, etc., which can only be approved by the City Council. Ms. Chase said she understands this process. However, she questioned if the Commission has ever discussed this issue as it relates to historic preservation. Council Member Plunkett emphasized that the Historic Preservation Commission would not have any control over the lot size requirements. He said the type of concept suggested by Ms. Chase would require a serious land use variance, which would require City Council action. City staff could outline the steps a person must follow in order to bring this type of land use change before the City Council for consideration. Ms. Campbell clarified that the house in question is an existing house that cannot be purchased because the lot is too small. She said this house must not be located on its own lot. Ms. Chase said she would imagine this home was a cottage home, and then someone built a larger house in front of it later on. Commissioner LeWarne summarized that the existing lot would have to be divided into two lots in order for the owner to sell the rear portion. Council Member Plunkett urged Ms. Chase to encourage her friend to present her concern to the Planning Department Staff, and they could provide guidance as to the best way to handle the situation. Commissioner LeWarne suggested that the Commission should consider opportunities to preserve historic structures that are in similar situations as the one brought forward by Ms. Chase. Many of these homes could have significant historic value and represent the character of the City. The Commission agreed that this would be an important issue to discuss at a future meeting. Councilmember Plunkett noted that Sunset Avenue is perhaps one of the few areas in the City that would benefit from the formation of a Historic District. Ms. Campbell suggested that a type of ordinance that might support the concept of preserving the older cottage homes in the City would be what other jurisdictions call the "cottage ordinance." This ordinance would allow properties to have a little bit more density than what would typically be allowed in exchange for some smaller house sizes. She noted that a citizen recently presented some ideas to the City Council regarding this option. He is in the process of obtaining more in-depth information. Council Member Plunkett suggested that when this citizen brings additional information to the City Council for consideration, perhaps it would be appropriate for the Historic Preservation Commission to review the issue and provide feedback as to how this option could relate to historic preservation. . Marilyn Hanby, 9618 — 21411 Place Southwest, said she was present to hear and participate in the Commission's discussion regarding an application she submitted concerning the First Baptist Church. Council Member Plunkett reminded the Commission of the application that was submitted by Ms. Hanby related to the First Baptist Church. He said Ms. Hanby has been working with him, as well as the Historic Register Subcommittee to prepare the application for final submittal. He noted that the application would be discussed later on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings scheduled on the agenda. There was no unfinished business scheduled on the agenda. COMMISSIONER WAITE ARRIVED TO THE MEETING AT ABOUT 4:00 P.M APPROVAL OF MINUTES (continued from earlier in the meeting) COMMISSIONER LEWARNE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUKE 10, 2004 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Administrative Subcommittee Report Commissioner LeWarne reminded the Commission that he was assigned to research the status of the tavern sign. He said he passed this request on to the director and president of the Historical Society. They have indicated an interest in preserving this sign. Commissioner LeWarne referred to the letter the Commission received from the Washington Trust. He recalled that Council Member Plunkett was going to contact this organization regarding his questions and concerns. Council Member Plunkett said he has not made this contact yet, and he requested that Ms. Campbell provide him with a copy of the letter. He said he Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 8, 2004 Page 2 still plans to contact the Trust regarding his concerns. He said that when he spoke with a representative of the organization prior to the grant being turned down, she brought up the idea of the Commission accepting half of the requested amount, with the City Council providing the other $500 in funding. He indicated to her that this would be a worthwhile option to consider. He said this conversation led him to believe that the Commission would at least receive some of the grant funding, and he was surprised that they did not. Communications Subcommittee Report Commissioner Kindness said she has not done anything with the several copies of the video she has obtained. She said she would like to encourage community organizations to view the video. Hopefully, some presentations can be arranged for the fall. They would not proceed with arrangements for the public forum until the historic inventory is further along. Vice Chair Waite pointed out that on the main floor of the City Offices there is a sign advertising the meetings that are being held in the building. Today, the sign indicated that there would be no public meeting. He questioned how the Commission could get their meeting on this sign. Commissioner Kindness said the Historic Preservation Commission Meeting is not being advertised on the public access channel, either. Commissioner LeWarne said the Historic Preservation Commission meetings have been advertised on the public access channel in the past. Ms. Campbell said she would look into the possibility of announcing the Commission meetings on the sign on the first floor of the City Office Building and on the public access channel. Historic Register Subcommittee Report Commissioner Baker indicated that the Historic Register Subcommittee had nothing new to report. Incentives Subcommittee Report Vice Chair Waite said he was late in communicating with Commissioner Kindness regarding the user-friendly cover sheet that was to be prepared. However, Commissioner Kindness has a draft available for the Commission's review. Commissioner Kindness said because she did not have the language that was previously written by Vice Chair Waite, she took the liberty of writing the last paragraph again. It states that, "Following are the procedural steps one takes to start the process, the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission is available to assist you." She questioned whether this new language fits appropriately. She distributed a copy of the draft cover letter. She noted that she reviewed the language that was written by Council Member Plunkett and ended up deleting a paragraph that appeared to be redundant. The Commission took the opportunity to read through the draft document prior to providing their comments. Commissioner Kindness reminded the staff that the cover page would be attached to the document that was prepared by the staff to outline the procedures for making application to the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Vice Chair Waite referred to the third sentence of the first paragraph. He recalled a previous Commission discussion regarding references to historic downtown Edmonds. Council Member Plunkett said his recollection was that the Commission decided to drop any reference to the downtown to make sure it is clear that the Commission is interested in preserving historic structures throughout the entire City. They agreed to change this reference to "preservation of our historic community." Commissioner LeWarne referred to the second paragraph and suggested that the term "historic landmark" is redundant. He suggested that the term be changed to "historic." In addition he suggested the following change, "the people of Edmonds support the preservation of Edmonds historic buildings and sites." The remainder of the Commission concurred with these two changes. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 8, 2004 Page 3 Council Member Plunkett suggested that the third paragraph be changed to read, "Prope owners who voluntaril lace their buildings on this register will be provide many advantages. For example ..." Wument they were lookin cil Me as in. I didn't know wha s talking ablS He noted that this section is related to the actual ordinance that was created by the Commission. The remainder of the Commission agreed. It was suggested that the five bulleted items be woven into a sentence structure, while clearly identifying the five items. The Commission discussed the last paragraph. Commissioner Kindness suggested that it is important to include the Commission's name. Commissioner LeWarne noted that the staff would likely provide most of the major assistance. Therefore, perhaps this paragraph should be changed to read, "... the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning and Development Staff are available to assist you." The Commission agreed this would be appropriate. Ms. Campbell, on the other hand, pointed that the handout is intended for people who are applying for modifications and building permits. She questioned if perhaps it would be better to refer these individuals to the Building Division. The Commission agreed to simplify the reference to just "City staff." Vice Chair Waite suggested that people would likely have two questions. They would go through the ordinary building process, but then would want to learn about tax advantages that are referenced in the document. They would then want to go through the nomination process. He questioned if this would be clear to interested individuals. Council Member Plunkett pointed out that materials are already available outlining the process for getting on the register. Ms. Hanby inquired if the proposed language is clear enough, when referencing buildings and properties, for people to understand that it also includes homes. The Commission agreed that in the first paragraph the reference should be changed to "historic buildings, homes and properties." This would make it clear that the Commission encourages the preservation of all types of historic structures. Commissioner Kindness said she would email the revised document to all of the Commissioners so that those who were absent could provide additional comments. Vice Chair Waite advised that he would start reviewing the document that was prepared by Ms. Graff so that it can be prepared for Commission review. Ms. Campbell asked that Vice Chair Waite email her the latest version of the document. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business items scheduled on the agenda. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Time Sheets Vice Chair Waite inquired if Commissioners could go back a few months when reporting their activities. Ms. Campbell answered that it would be acceptable to include a few months on the same form. Vice Chair Waite inquired if Ms. Campbell is familiar with what can and cannot be reported on the time sheets. He questioned if research on any specific building would count. Ms. Campbell said that any Commission time that is related to the inventory process could be reported. One stipulation is that the Commissioners must share the knowledge they gain. For the benefit of the audience, Council Member Plunkett requested that Ms. Campbell explain what the time sheets are for. Ms. Campbell explained that the City received a grant from the State to help the City, as a Certified Local Government, compile a basic inventory of historic properties in the City. A consultant has been hired to work on this project, but the City agreed, as a match, to put in some money and some time (translating into money) to help with the project. Therefore, the Commissioners' time translates into money that helps with the grant. This is volunteer time, but it does show an effort on their part to assist with the inventory. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 8, 2004 Page 4 Baptist Church Application Status Ms. Campbell reported that the City received a lot of information from Ms. Hanby, one of the applicants for the First Baptist Church nomination application. One thing that was helpful was a narrative of when the building was constructed, and what has taken place throughout its history. She said she attempted to prepare a staff report that she plans to place on next month's agenda as a public hearing. She pointed out that she is having a hard time evaluating the application according to a couple of the criteria, and she thinks that has more to do with where the consultant is at in the inventory process. As part of the inventory, she recalled that the consultant would actually make a context statement, which would speak towards broad patterns of history and the types of events that were significant in the City's history and heritage. When the City has a context statement, the evaluation of the criteria of whether or not the site is significantly associated with the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or cultural heritage of Edmonds will be a little easier to evaluate on a site -by -site basis. She recalled that it was fairly easy to associate the Carnegie Library Museum with a significant pattern in the history of Edmonds. Ms. Campbell said another criteria that must be met is related to the integrity of the building, itself. She said there are sketches available illustrating what the Church was to look like when it underwent a major remodel in 1951. This makes it possible to compare with what currently exists. However, it is a little difficult to ascertain the changes. Ms. Hanby said that if the Commission were to review the architectural sketches from 1951 they would find that the structure is the same except for the steeple, which is almost the same. In the original sketches, there was one extra square piece on top, but this was never put on. She referred to the blueprints of the building and the news clippings they obtained from the University of Washington, which identify where the baptistery was and where it is now. The blueprints also show that the north and south walls are from the first church, which was built in 1909 and moved to the present location in 1929. At that time, a basement was built, and the basement is still being used. They did change the location of the baptistery, itself. But the space that was the original baptistery is still being used to this day. This represents the historic integrity of the church. A good portion of the church is still in its original form. Vice Chair Waite said that once the consultants have completed the historic inventory, they could produce a context statement. He explained that in the broader sense, the context statement might eventually develop a theme. But there would still be room for all kinds of buildings and even elements of buildings. Ms. Hanby requested that the Historic Preservation Commission help them identify the historic elements of their building. Vice Chair Waite explained that the Commission is required to follow certain procedures when reviewing applications because they have received State funding. Ms. Campbell said the application is complete, and there is a fairly good chronology available. She agreed with Ms. Hanby that it is difficult to isolate the specific things on the site that are historically relevant. The Commission's only choice, in order to proceed in a fair and timely manner, would be to go ahead with the public hearing on the application. The applicant can present the application and the Commission can make a decision. Commissioner LeWarne inquired if the draft staff report that was provided at the last meeting was been changed or expanded. Ms. Campbell said the information the Commission received at the last meeting was the actual application form, and all kinds of attachments and additional information have been provided to expand upon the application. There were some changes to the actual form, itself, too. Commissioner LeWarne inquired if the consultant for the historic register has visited the church. Ms. Campbell said she does not know. Commissioner LeWarne said it would be helpful to know this information since the consultant is the expert on these issues. He agreed that once a context statement is available, it would be easier to review an application. On the other hand, in any context statement, building a community involves early churches. Even in the absence of a context statement, he would not have difficulty on that aspect of the application. However, he agreed that the context statement is fundamental in the Commission's efforts to review applications. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 8, 2004 Page 5 Council Member Plunkett inquired regarding the standards that must be met. Ms. Campbell said there are three standards that must be met with any application, and then the application must meet at least one of another several. The first three standards that must be met are: • That the site or building is significantly associated with the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or cultural heritage of Edmonds. • That it has integrity. • That is at least 50 years old or has exception importance if it is less than 50 years old. Vice Chair Waite inquired if Ms. Campbell would consider the First Baptist Church application complete. Ms. Campbell answered that the Commission by-laws include a pretty nitty-gritty list of a number of different things that technically should be included in an application. She said she hasn't gone through the application to make sure that every single item has been technically addressed. Ideally, an application would meet all of these different requirements, but she felt this would be very difficult for a layperson to do. Council Member Plunkett said the applicant has been working with Ms. Campbell for quite a while. She has conveyed to the applicant exactly what is needed. She has indicated that the application is reasonably ready to go. Therefore, he suggested that it is the applicant's decision whether to bring the application before the Commission or not. Vice Chair Waite agreed that the applicant has the right to make the application. Ms. Hanby said she has worked with Ms. Campbell a number of times, but some of the issues that are being raised now never really came up in their discussions. Ms. Campbell never talked to her about a context statement and she doesn't really understand what that is. She said she also talked with Ms. Campbell about the fact that there were some things they didn't know how to do, and Ms. Campbell didn't seem to be able to communicate these concerns well enough for her to understand. She said she has the feeling that Ms. Campbell hasn't had much experience with this process, either. Ms. Hanby said she has stated repeatedly to both Ms. Campbell and to Council Member Plunkett that, if the application is not done correctly and the Commission or staff can identify how it could be changed, she is willing to make the adjustments in the application. But she said she doesn't see how any church would not have some kind of an impact in the community, and should therefore, be part of the context of historic preservation in the City. Council Member Plunkett inquired if an applicant would be allowed to present the application to the Commission again if the first application does not succeed. Ms. Campbell answered that the applicant would not be prevented from presenting the application again. Ms. Hanby said she has the impression that some of the information in the materials they gathered related to the Church and the City would play a part in explaining the context of the church and also the cultural and historic part, as well. She said the applicants are interested in the church being on the register, and she felt it would qualify. It is 95 years old. Ms. Campbell clarified that the item was not placed on the agenda to argue the merits of the application at this time. The Commission is not ready to make a decision. Ms. Hanby said she understands this, but she is trying to get to the point of how to do the application so that it is correct and suitable to the Commission. Ms. Campbell clarified that the by-laws are very specific as to all of the technicalities the ideal application should contain. There is a standard that is held up for the applications to meet to be comparable with applications for the State Register. In practicality, she doesn't think that every application that comes forward will meet all of the standards without a doubt. But that doesn't mean there is not a reason to have that set of standards. The Commission is held to certain standards under the purview of the State Government. Ms. Campbell clarified that she has read through the application in detail a number of times, and she is trying to figure out how it relates to each of the criteria. She concluded that, in her mind, an application is complete enough when there is enough information available to figure out whether or not it meets each of the criteria. She said she is ready to send the application on to a public hearing. Commissioner Kindness said it is important for the Commission to convey to the community exactly what is required. Again, Ms. Campbell stated that once the context statement is available from the consultant, it will be easier for the staff and Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 8, 2004 Page 6 Commission to evaluate each property. Commissioner LeWarne added that the context statement would be a fundamental statement that would become the basis of what the Commission does. He said he sees the context statement as an outline of the history of Edmonds. He said that in his personal view, churches are very instrumental in community unity, etc. Therefore, a church would fit into whatever context statement is created. Council Member Plunkett said the issue related to the context statement is contained in the very first standard that has to be met. The staff has already considered whether or not the property is significantly associated with the history, architectural, engineering or cultural heritage of Edmonds. The Commission is looking for an overall context statement, but in the mean time they have to determine whether or not a church would meet this criteria. If the applicant provides as much information as possible to address this first standard, the Commission could then determine if the information provided fits the overall concept of a context statement. Ms. Campbell said staff would advertise the public hearing a week ahead of the August 121 meeting. The report, which is basically complete, could be sent out at least two weeks ahead of time. If the Commission finds, at the public hearing, that the application is insufficient for the Commission to make a decision, they can decide whether or not they need additional information before making a decision. The item could be continued to the next meeting. Vice Chair Waite inquired if the Commissioners would have the ability to contact the applicant or staff for additional information they feel is lacking from the application prior to the public hearing. Council Member Plunkett said these requests must be made by the entire Commission in a formal setting. If the Commissioners individually contact an applicant for more information, this could be considered an ex parte communication, which is illegal. Council Member Plunkett carefully described the process the Commission would use when reviewing the application at the next meeting. He also described the types of action the Commission could take after their review. He noted that the minutes of the hearing before the Commission would be forwarded to the City Council along with the staff report. The applicant would then go before the City Council. Vice Chair Waite clarified that the Commission would not make the final decision on the application. They would make a recommendation to the City Council, who would make the final decision. Commissioner Baker inquired if the Commissioners could visit the site prior to the public hearing. Council Member Plunkett said the City Attorney would advise against site visits. This would be considered as gathering information that is different than the information that was provided to the rest of the Commission. If a Commissioner visits the site, they should disclose this at the public hearing. In a quasi-judicial hearing, everyone should be working from the same information and record. Commissioner LeWarne suggested that perhaps an invitation could be extended for all of the Commissioners to visit the site at a certain time. Council Member Plunkett said this type of visit would probably be appropriate. Commissioner Kindness suggested that the Commission meet at the church location prior to returning to the meeting room for the formal public hearing. Ms. Hanby requested that Ms. Campbell provide definite feedback as to whether the application could be considered complete enough to bring before the Commission or not. Ms. Campbell said the application is ready to be passed to the Commission. She apologized for her lack of experience with this type of application. She concluded that the application was not easy to review, but she is comfortable passing it on to the Commission for consideration. The Commission directed Ms. Campbell to set the notification process in motion for the public hearing to be held on August 12, 2004. Ms. Hanby said she is in favor of the Commission visiting the church, but it is important to know that the pastor of the church is not in favor of the application. Council Member Plunkett clarified that the Commission would not be deciding if the property was going to be on the register. They would only be deciding if the property would be eligible for the register. The property owner would have to grant approval before the property could be placed on the register. REVIEW OF NEXT MEETING'S PROPOSED AGENDA No specific comments were provided related to the proposed agenda for the next meeting. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 8, 2004 Page 7 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CHAIR COMMENTS Vice Chair Waite did not provide any comments during this portion of the agenda. HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEMBER COMMENTS None of the Commissioners provided comments during this portion of the agenda. ADJOURNMENT The Commission meeting was adjourned at 5:06 p.m. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes July 8, 2004 Page 8