Loading...
2004-08-12 Historic Preservation Commission MinutesHISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES August 12, 2004 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting of the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission was called to order at 3:30 p.m. in the 3rd Floor Conference Room of City Hall, 121 — 51 Avenue North. PRESENT Stephen Waite, Vice Chair Darrell Marmion Chuck LeWarne Barbara Kindness Ed Baker ABSENT Michael Plunkett (excused) Gregg Arnold (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER LEWARNE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE COMMISSIONER MARMION ABSTAINING. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Star Campbell, Planner JULY 8, 2004 BE APPROVED AS REVISED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, WITH Commissioner Marmion suggested that two items be added to the agenda before Item 5. The first would be a review of the procedures the Commission should follow for the public hearing. The second item would be a review of one minor procedural issue regarding how the Commission has done reviews in the past and how they should be forwarded to the City Council. COMMISSIONER MARMION MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER KINDNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE There was no one in the audience who expressed a desire to approach the Commission during this portion of the meeting. REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES Commissioner Marmion explained that it is important for the Commissioners and the audience in attendance for the public hearing to understand where the Commission is in the process of reviewing a property for nomination. He referred to the flow chart that was provided to outline the review process from start to finish. He pointed out that the process begins with the applicant preparing a nomination application form. They work with the City staff and sometimes Commissioners to get the forms complete and ready for a more formal review. Once the application is complete, City staff collects information, prepares a staff report, and provides public notification of the public hearing. The Commissioners receive their staff reports about a week before a public hearing is scheduled. He advised that the public hearing would start with an opening statement by the Commission Chair or a City staff member. The applicant would then have an opportunity to present their statement on why they believe the property is worthy of nomination to the Register, and then the hearing would be open to public comments and rebuttal by all parties. Staff would provide additional comments and then the Commission would hold a discussion and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council would make the ultimate decision regarding the application. Commissioner Marmion further explained that after a hearing has been completed and the Commission has made their recommendation, a report would be generated by staff. The owner and the applicant would be formally notified of the Commission's decision. He advised that, according to the current by-laws, the next step would be to obtain the owner's consent. However, with a previous application, the owner's consent was obtained after the application was forwarded to and reviewed by the City Council. He noted that if the application is not approved by the City Council or if the owner fails to grant approval, the property could not be identified on the Register. Ms. Campbell added that, if an application is approved by the City Council and the owner grants his/her consent, a zoning overlay would be created. This would not change the zoning designation for the property, but it would add a note to indicate that the property has been identified on the Register. Commissioner Marmion explained that if someone were to propose a change for this property in the future, the overlay would inform a property owner that the property is on the Register and the proper procedures for modification should be followed. The overlay also provides a property owner with the status that allows him/her to take advantage of tax incentives. Commissioner LeWarne inquired if the application review procedure would be stopped if the Commission were to deny the request. Commissioner Marmion said his understanding is that if the Commission recommends denial of the application, the applicant would have the ability to appeal the Commission's recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner LeWarne pointed out that if the City Council were to deny an application, the Commission could send it back to the applicant with a request that they revise the application to address the deficiencies. He emphasized that the application could be resubmitted. Commissioner Marmion agreed. Ms. Campbell said her understanding is that the Commission is responsible for making a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council then makes its own decision on the application. Commissioner Kindness inquired if the City Council Members would likely want to tour the site, or would they rely on the Commission's recommendation. Vice Chair Waite said that since the City Council has so many responsibilities, they rely on the expertise of the Commission Members to make judgment and see that the application complies with the criteria established by the state. Chair Marmion agreed. He said that while it is certainly within a City Council Member's place to visit a property, the idea is for the Commission to complete all the legwork and review all the details prior to sending a recommendation to the City Council. Vice Chair Waite requested that Commissioner Marmion review the Commission's authority and limitations when reviewing applications. Commissioner Marmion explained that when applications are submitted to the City, it is the Commission's responsibility to provide a professional position on whether or not there is historical value on that property. However, the Commission does not have any authority to govern exactly what can and cannot happen to a property that is designated on the Register. If a property owner were to decide to tear down or modify a building that has been identified on the Register, they would be required to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness in order to retain their status on the Register. If a property owner fails to obtain this certificate prior to modification of the property, the property would be removed from the Register. He emphasized that being on the historic Register would not stop development from happening on the site. Being identified on the Register is more of a positive incentive for people who want the status and the tax benefits of being on the Register. Commissioner LeWarne noted that while the City's Register of Historic Places allows churches to be included, his understanding is that the State and National Registers do not allow religious properties to be designated. Mr. Chave clarified that they can be designated on the State and National Registers. However, there are some restrictions about what governments can tell churches they can and cannot do. Ms. Hanby inquired if a church would be eligible for funding help if they wanted to do something with a property that is identified on the Register. Commissioner Marmion said they would not be eligible for direct funding, but being on the Register could give some credibility to the project and might help with a grant application. He summarized, however, that Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 12, 2004 Page 2 being identified on the Register would not entitle a church to additional funds through grants from the City. Mr. Chave added that grant funding for these types of projects becomes available periodically, but the City does not know when this money will be available, and the funding is competitive with other projects. Ms. Hanby inquired who is responsible for issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness. Commissioner Marmion answered that this would be the responsibility of the Commission. If an owner of property that is on the Register wants to modify the structure, they would have to file for a review of the project and a Certificate of Appropriateness as part of their building permit application. Ms. Hanby inquired how the City would determine whether a proposed modification is significant or not. Ms. Campbell said that rather than having a threshold to identify what types of modifications would require a Certificate of Appropriateness, certain exemptions were identified. For example, you don't need to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness for things such as emergency measures, routine maintenance, etc. Commissioner Marmion said it is important for the Commission to be more specific in their recommendation as to the details and aspects of a property that has historic value. This will prevent unnecessary restrictions on development that occurs in areas that are not part of the historic portion of the structure. Vice Chair Waite emphasized that if an owner of property on the Register decides he/she does not want to comply with the requirement of obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness, they can withdraw their property from the Register with no penalty. However, if a private property owner has received a tax benefit from the State as a result of being on the Register, they might have to repay the tax benefits. Mr. Chave pointed out that, in the case of the church, the designation would be more of an honorary status than anything else. Vice Chair Waite pointed out that the local and State requirements are not as restrictive as the Federal Department of the Interior's regulations. While the City may want to have the same guidelines as the Department of the Interior, they do not have the authority to demand this. Mr. Chave agreed. Commissioner Marmion advised that when an application comes before the Commission for review, they must consider the following four specific criteria: • The property must be significantly associated with the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or cultural heritage of Edmonds. • The property must have integrity. • The property must be at least 50 years old. If it is not, there must be some other extraordinary reason for the Commission to consider it. • The property has to fall into at least one of the eleven specific criteria that are listed. REVIEW OF BYLAWS AS THEY RELATE TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR OWNER CONSENT Commissioner Marmion said it is important for the Commission to discuss whether owner's consent should be obtained before an application is reviewed by the City Council or after they have reviewed it and before it is written into ordinance format. He referred to Item 3.A.5 of the Commission By -Laws. He suggested that one benefit of obtaining owner consent before sending an application to the City Council is that it would limit the need for the City Council to review applications that are not likely to obtain owner consent. He questioned whether the City Council's time should be used to review a property that is not likely to be included on the Register in the end. One the other side, he questioned the need to obtain an owner's consent before it is known whether the City Council would approve the application. He summarized that there are advantages and disadvantages either way, but it is important for the Commission to decide how they want the process to flow. He recalled that when the last application was reviewed, the Commission decided it would be appropriate to obtain owner's consent after the City Council's review. However, he said he couldn't recall the reason behind the Commission's decision. Ms. Campbell noted that the ordinance, itself, states that "If the Commission finds a nominated property as eligible for the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, the Commission shall make the recommendation to the City Council that the property be listed in the Register with owner's consent." She said this perhaps implies that an owner's consent would be obtained only if an application were approved by the City Council, and this may have been the reason for the Commission's previous direction. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 12, 2004 Page 3 Vice Chair Waite suggested that out of courtesy, property owners should be contacted regarding an application prior to notice being placed on the property that an application has been submitted. If this is not done right away, property owners can become upset. Ms. Campbell advised that the public hearing is held at the Commission level rather than before the City Council. Therefore, the notification sign would be put up anyway before the City is required to obtain the owner's permission. Vice Chair Waite expressed his concern if property owner consent is not obtained until after the public hearing has been held and the application is before the City Council for consideration. He pointed out that at any time in the process, a property owner could refuse to give his/her consent. The property owner is really in control. On the other hand, perhaps the property owner would want to know what elements are being considered for the Register before making a decision. Commissioner Marmion said that if the Commission wants to follow the same process that was used for the last application they reviewed, they could include an additional step between Step 3 and Step 4. Everything except the owner's consent could be forwarded to the City Council for initial review and preliminary approval. Then the owner's formal consent could be obtained and an ordinance could be prepared. Lastly, the City Council could make their final determination. He recommended that, according to the by-laws, the Commission has the ability to revise the procedure without changing the by- laws. The Administrative Subcommittee could then be charged with creating a proposal for new language. Commissioner Kindness pointed out that since the property owner would be notified of the Commission's recommendation, they would already be informed of the application prior to it being forwarded to the City Council for review. She did not feel a property owner would be excluded from being notified of the process. As long as the property owners are made aware of the application, she did not feel a need to change from the process that was used for the previous application. Commissioner LeWarne suggested that there should be a specific point in the process where the property owner would have an opportunity to say no. Commissioner Marmion agreed. The debate is whether this should occur before or after City Council review. Commissioner Kindness suggested that something should be added to Step 2 to identify what the next step would be if an owner does not support the application. Commissioner Marmion suggested that perhaps once the inventory has been completed, the Commission could complete review of the properties to determine which ones would be eligible. While not every owner would consent to having his or her property on the Register, the formal review would have already been done for each. The properties would be listed as eligible until someone decides they want to place them on the Register. He suggested that it might be appropriate for the owner consent to take place after the City Council review to enable the Commission to queue up the eligible properties. Mr. Chave reminded the Commission that Council Member Plunkett was supportive of having the City Council rule whether a property was eligible or not prior to obtaining owner consent. He emphasized that it would still be entirely up to the owner whether or not a property is included on the Register. Commissioner Marmion suggested that the Commission continue to use this process. If the City Council expresses a concern about the process, the Commission could consider changes at that time. Mr. Chave agreed. He said he does not see any harm in the City declaring whether a property is eligible or not. The eligibility should be independent of whether a property owner wants his/her property on the Register. He noted that ownership changes, and while a current owner may not want to be on the Register, once eligibility is established, a subsequent owner may choose to participate. Vice Chair Waite agreed it would be appropriate for the Commission and City Council to determine a property's eligibility for the Register prior to obtaining owner consent, but he suggested that some time limit should be placed on the action. Mr. Chave disagreed. He said there is nothing in the ordinance that would indicate a time limit. The only issue would be if a building were altered so that it was no longer the same as when it was originally considered for eligibility. As long as the building has not changed, the eligibility determination should not change. CHAIR MARMION MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION REVISE THEIR BY-LAWS WITH THE INTENT TO BE THAT OBTAINING THE OWNER'S CONSENT FOR THE NOMINATION WOULD HAPPEN AFTER THE FIRST CITY COUNCIL REVIEW BUT PRIOR TO ACCEPTING THE ORDINANCE IN THE CITY COUNCIL'S SECOND REVIEW. THE ADMINISTRATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE SHOULD TURN THIS INTENT INTO BY-LAW LANGUAGE CHANGES FOR THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER AT A FUTURE MEETING. COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 12, 2004 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION TO DETERMINE THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF EDMONDS FOR PLACEMENT ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES None of the Commissioners indicated a desire or need to excuse themselves from participating in the public hearing process. Vice Chair Waite reported that the Commissioners had the opportunity to visit the site, and they were met very graciously by Pastor Lane, who spent a great deal of time with them. There were also a few other individuals present. The Commission viewed the entire structure, and they have a very good understanding of the physical features of it. In addition, the Commissioners have reviewed the staff report, which describes the historical elements of the structure. He thanked the Pastor and the congregants for the opportunity to visit the site. Ms. Campbell noted that everyone present at the meeting read the staff report that was provided to the Commission. Therefore, she questioned the need to review the staff report step-by-step. Vice Chair Waite suggested that Ms. Campbell just review the highlights of the staff report. Ms. Campbell reviewed that the application is for the designation of the First Baptist Church of Edmonds as eligible for inclusion in the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The church is located at 404 Bell Street, and the original church building was constructed in 1909 at the corner of Sixth Avenue and Edmonds Street. In 1929 the building was moved to its current location and a basement was added. In 1946 another house was moved to the site and connected to the rear of the original church building to serve as a parsonage. In 1950 there was a substantial remodel and addition to the church. There were blueprints submitted that showed the way the church was to look per the remodel. Church literature indicates that between 1982 and 1993, the church underwent some remodels and changes, but the overall extent of those changes has not been documented in detail. Ms. Campbell explained that when reviewing an application, four criteria must be met in order for the Commission to make a positive recommendation to the City Council. She reviewed each as follows: • The property is significantly associated with the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or cultural heritage of Edmonds. Ms. Campbell advised that the Commission must determine whether or not the property meets the criteria. • The property has integrity. Ms. Campbell said there have been extensive changes to the building, as it was originally constructed in 1909. Since the 1950 remodel and addition, a detailed evaluation has not been done. The application included a copy of the blueprints for the 1950 remodel. When comparing the blueprints with photos of the building, you can see that it was not constructed exactly as it was shown on the plans, but the overall form of the building is very similar. Ms. Campbell said she noted some specific changes to the exterior of the building by comparing the plans with the photos of the present day church. A number of the paned windows have been replaced with vinyl windows, and a number of those that remain have had the glass replaced with a yellow plastic material. It appears that some of the doors have been replaced, but others may date back to the 1950 remodel. She said she could not tell if the siding has been replaced since 1950. The drawings and blueprints show a lot of trim work on the building that was either never added during the addition or it has since been removed. Ms. Campbell noted that church literature indicates that between 1982 and 1993 the building was actually "overhauled," although specific changes are not really noted. The white picket fence was added. 1994 literature from the church notes that the church was in the process of painting the building and putting on a new roof. The overall extent of the changes to the interior of the building have not been detailed, but it is clear from photographs that certain elements such as the arched -roof beams and the form of the sanctuary look like they are from the 1950 renovation. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 12, 2004 Page 5 Ms. Campbell said it is up to the Commission to ultimately determine if the building has integrity. • The property is at least 50 years old or has exceptional importance if it is not 50 years old. Ms. Campbell advised that the building is at least 50 years old, even if you look at the 1950's portion of the buildings. • The property falls into at least one of eleven additional criteria. Ms. Campbell advised that there are two of the eleven criteria that the subject building does appear to meet. One is that it exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history. She said the applicant has stated that the church has been used for many weddings, baptisms, funerals, and community events. The congregation has been an integral part of Edmonds for a total of 95 years, 75 of those are at the present location. Assessor records indicate that the church is one of the earliest churches still standing in Edmonds. Ms. Campbell said the other criterion the application meets is that the church is associated with the lives of persons significant in National, State or local history. One of the members of the Church was Mrs. Kerr, and she was the first woman mayor of Edmonds, elected in 1924. The nomination application included a number of documents that show that Ms. Kerr had a significant role in the church activities. She was a Sunday School teacher, president of the women's society, the church clerk, and president of the church missionary group. Ms. Campbell referred to the attachments that were provided with the staff report. These include excerpts about the property from Edmonds, the First Century, 1948 aerial photographs of the church, and elevation views of the church from the 1950 addition remodel blueprints. Ms. Campbell advised that it is up to the Commission to determine whether they feel the church is significantly associated with the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or cultural heritage of Edmonds. In consideration of the extent of the changes to the building since 1950, the Commission also needs to determine whether or not they feel the building has integrity. If the integrity criterion, along with the other criteria, is found to be met, staff recommends that the Commission identify the specific historic aspects of the building that will be designated and identify those in their recommendation. She said staff s ultimate recommendation is to hold onto the application until the historic survey has been completed so that additional information can be obtained on how the application fits within Edmonds historical and architectural context. Vice Chair Waite asked Ms. Campbell to briefly describe what the historic survey is for the benefit of the audience. Ms. Campbell explained that the City currently has a consultant working to complete an initial historic survey of certain properties within the downtown area. Along with that, a very significant portion of the consultant's work is writing up a historical context statement. The context statement would identify important themes in the history of Edmonds, and talks about the different industry, building styles, social movements, etc. She said it would be very helpful for the Commission to have a context statement because it is integral to reviewing a property against the first criterion. She noted that in order for the Commission to determine if a property is significantly associated with the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or cultural heritage of Edmonds, they must know what is considered significant. That is the role of the context statement. Maralyn Hanby provided a letter from Roy Robinson and some photographs, which describe exactly what he did to the parsonage when it had to be reattached in what he believes was 1987. She also provided a letter from Les Hanby, who has been a member of the church since 1968. His letter indicates that there have been no changes to the exterior of the church at any time since 1968. Ms. Hanby referred to a point made by Ms. Campbell concerning the plastic over the windows. She clarified that there are no plastic windows in the church, and she doesn't know how this statement came to be. The Commissioners can address this issue because they visited the site. Vice Chair Waite agreed, and added that the minor details of the application could be corrected at a later point. He asked Ms. Hanby if she would like to briefly emphasize specific items of the application. Ms. Hanby said there was some mention in the original application concerning a preschool on the site that was started in 1965 and Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 12, 2004 Page 6 continued through 1969. It was moved because it became too large, but past Mayor Fahey's children were enrolled in the preschool that was held at the church site. She emphasized that the church has been a part of the City in many ways. Reverend Crane said that he doesn't have anything else to add in terms of how the Commission should proceed other than to thank the Commission, on behalf of a group of people from Edmonds, for the volunteer service they provide. Commissioner LeWarne inquired regarding the architectural integrity of the church. Vice Chair Waite explained that there are two major ways to look at integrity: the physical plant and the cultural aspect. While a building might not be a great architectural piece, it could have an impact just by its mere presence. This is a significant element to consider. The staff report clearly indicates that there is a long history of the church's involvement in the community. Regarding the additions that were made to the church, Vice Chair Waite said this is a fine example of a building that is 80 or 90 years old that has gone through some changes, as is typical. The last significant change that took place 50 years ago still complies with the age criterion. He referred to the yellow windows that were noted in the staff report, and advised that they are actually made of glass. While some might not like these windows, they were common for the period. Some of the strength of the building is that it does show its physical evolution. Commissioner LeWarne said almost any church in a small, somewhat pioneer town makes a very major social contribution. The subject church is consistent with this, and it doesn't bother him that the context statement is not available yet. He said he couldn't imagine a context statement that wouldn't say that these different social institutions played a role. Clearly, the church's contribution has been demonstrated. The church is located in the heart of what has always been the downtown area and also in the heart of a residential area. He expressed his belief that the church does fit in with the historical fabric of Edmonds. Politically, he said it would be unfortunate if the Commission were to say they are ready for the community to come before them with applications and then say they have to wait for a context statement. Commissioner LeWarne said that, regardless of the changes that were made to the church over the years, they seem to have stuck pretty close to the original design of the building. Whether the windows are vinyl, plastic, yellow, etc. the configuration of the windows, the baptistery and the footprint of the building, it seems that they are not dramatic changes that have altered the building significantly. He summarized that the building appears to fit into the cultural context of the community, and it has maintained some architectural integrity. Commissioner Baker concurred with Commissioner LeWarne. He noted that there are beamed arches in the building that were obviously not there in the beginning. But they are easily 50 years old and would qualify for historic preservation. He summarized that part of the roof structure is original and some was redone about 50 years ago. He agreed that the Commission should not wait to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the application until after a context statement is available. Ms. Hanby said the application does note, and it is shown in the blueprints, that the walls north and south are the original walls of the church that was moved to its current location in 1929. The church was built in 1909 and moved in 1929. Portions of the 1909 church are still a part of the existing building. There have not been any major changes since 1949. The work since that time has been related mostly to interior things. But the only work that has taken place in the sanctuary is the removal of the choir rail. Ed Orner explained that two wood stoves originally heated the church, one in the front and one in the back. He said Mrs. Kerr, the first woman mayor of Edmonds, was his Sunday School teacher. Ms. Hanby pointed out that Mr. Omer has been going to the church since he was nine years old. He said there is a picture of him, his parents and his grandparents standing in front of the church. The Commission asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission knows when the asphalt shingle siding was put on the church. Vice Chair Waite said his speculation is that the shingles were put on in either with the 1950 addition or prior to that time. This type of siding was extremely common in that period of time. Ms. Hanby inquired if some of the siding could have been on the original church when it was moved in 1929. Vice Chair Waite said it is possible. However, through further investigation, it appears to match the two structures that were joined Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 12, 2004 Page 7 together. The product, in its base form, was available before 1929, but he said he doesn't think this is a significant element in the application. He added that the = the cross are a significant addition to the composition of the City. It has its own identity and tells passersby what is located on the property. Buildings like this are part of the fabric of any community. Commissioner Marmion said he believes the application meets the four criteria, and the applicant has shown how the building fits in with the cultural history of the City. The church essentially grew up with Edmonds and the people who were part of the church were the people who were the main part of the community. Commissioner Marmion said he struggled with the integrity criterion. He said he looks at the structure as two buildings, one that was built in 1909 and then the remodel that occurred in 1949 and 1950. The building is true to what was done in 1950, so this provides integrity to the building. Commissioner Marmion said he believes the application meets Criterion B, D and E. Criterion B requires that the application embody the distinctive architectural characteristics of a type, period, style or method of design and construction. He explained that the application meets this criterion not so much based on what the building looked like in 1949 or 1950. But when talking about architectural characteristics of a period, an important part of the property is that it was moved. The way the criteria read, moving a structure would take away from the integrity because it is no longer on its original site. But when you look at the cultural aspects, buildings that were sound were often moved to new sites as the needs changed. The fact that they kept adapting the building to whatever was needed is important from a historical perspective. Commissioner Marmion referred to Criterion D, which relates to elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history. He said he believes the history that was provided amply in the staff report is important and addresses this criterion. The same is true for Criterion E. He referred to Criterion G, which relates to buildings or structures that are moved from their original location. He said he sees this as an attribute and not a detriment, since it is indicative of the period. Commissioner Marmion said it is important for the Commission to be specific in their recommendation. If they recommend approval of the application, he suggested that the significant historic portions of the building include the north and south walls of the main part of the church, which were part of the original building. The fagade and the front of the building also have historic significance. The arch structure inside the building is also important. The history related to the rear of the building is important, but architecturally, it is not significant in any way. Commissioner LeWarne said that perhaps he would agree with Commissioner Marmion that the application would meet Criterion B, as well. However, this is a place where perhaps a context statement would be helpful to point out the types of buildings that were built in Edmonds at that time. Commissioner Marmion agreed that the context statement would aid the Commission when reviewing applications. But the level of data that has been provided by the applicant is substantial enough for the Commission to understand the context. Other properties might be more difficult to review. However, the lack of a context statement should not stop the Commission from making a recommendation on this application. Ms. Hanby said there is one picture available of the church in 1943. Vice Chair Waite noted that picture was provided in the staffs report. Commissioner Marmion said he wished there had been more pictures and data available to support the historic value of the property before 1949. Ms. Hanby said it is difficult to find this information. Commissioner Marmion said it is important for the Commission to understand how to reconcile the differences between a nomination form, the Commission's discussion and the staff reports. In the end, they need one, concise final report. Ms. Campbell explained that the memorandum the Commission sends to the City Council with their recommendation would reference the minutes from the public hearing. Commissioner Kindness indicated that she agrees with the comments provided by her fellow Commissioners. She said the focus of her review was related to the cultural aspects of the building and what luminaries might have attended the church. She also noted the discrepancy between her observation and the staff report related to the windows. Commissioner LeWarne inquired regarding the correct name for the church today. Reverend Crane said the technical name is the Edmonds First Baptist Church, but it is known as North Sound Church. Commissioner LeWarne suggested that "North Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 12, 2004 Page 8 Sound Church" should be added in parenthesis after the official name of the church. The remainder of the Commission agreed. COMMISSIONER LEWARNE MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE NOMINATION OF THE EDMONDS FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH/NORTH SOUND CHURCH TO THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. Vice Chair Waite reminded the Commission that sometimes an entire structure is considered historical and others have only portions that are historical. He suggested that the Commission should clarify the elements of the structure that would be considered historical. He referred to the recommendation by Commissioner Marmion that the original parts of the church provide the historical significance. The structures strength is more in the evolution and growth of the church itself than in the physical portion of the building. Commissioner Marmion agreed that the motion should specifically call out the historic aspects of the structure. He felt that historic significance is related to the north and south walls, the fagade, the steeple, and the interior arching of the building. However, he did not feel the entire structure should be placed on the Register. Mr. Omer questioned why the Commission is changing the name of the church to North Sound Church. It has always been known as the Edmonds First Baptist Church. Commissioner Marmion pointed out that the name on the application is Edmonds First Baptist Church. Ms. Dupeau said she attended several meetings before the new church leaders took over, and they promised they would not change the name. Ms. Hanby referred to the building that was attached to the church and used as the parsonage. She pointed out that this building is probably as old as the church. She questioned if this would make a difference in the Commission's recommendation. Commissioner Marmion said he is looking at the building from two perspectives: cultural and architectural history. For the cultural aspect, the entire building would be considered historical. But if the owners continue to remodel the building and adapt its uses, it would not take away from, and would probably add to the cultural aspect of the structure. He said he wouldn't want to hinder alterations in an area that he, personally, wouldn't consider architecturally significant. He said that, in his mind, the parts that have architectural significance are not related to the parsonage. Commissioner Kindness said that in situations where the Commission is reviewing a building that is 100 years old, with parts that have been remodeled within the last 20 years, she can see the need to be more specific. However, because the entire building is over 50 years old, she questioned if they need to be so specific. Commissioner Marmion said it is important to be clear about what they are addressing as historic. If the Commission feels the entire structure is historically significant, that is certainly an option. But they need to make that clear. Commissioner Marmion summarized that the Commission should specifically identify the areas of the structure that need to be protected so that they do not unduly restrict the property owner from making changes to the portions of the property that are not considered historically significant. Reverend Crane said he appreciates Commissioner Marmion's concerns and comments. In a church that is ongoing, this is not just a historical building; it is place where a congregation meets. Uses change and form follows function. To give the church the maximum ability to perhaps preserve the architecture of the historic building and also utilize the building for a live congregation, the more specific the Commission can be, the better. He would appreciate it if the Commission could be as specific as possible. Vice Chair Waite referred to the parsonage and said that fenestration is one of the key elements of a building. At some point the windows on the building will need to be replaced with something more modern. Now the Commission must decide whether or not the parsonage portion of the structure should be left out of the historic designation. COMMISSIONER MARMION PROPOSED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO INNUMERATE SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THE BUILDING, INCLUDING THE NORTH AND SOUTH WALLS OF THE ORIGINAL CHURCH, THE WEST FACADE, THE STEEPLE, THE BAPTISTERY AND THE ARCH STRUCTURE INSIDE THE BUILDING. Commissioner Marmion said that a lot of aspects in the interior of the building have already been changed or are being changed. They need to be specific. If not, then future changes that are considered maintenance or minor alterations would Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 12, 2004 Page 9 have to be reviewed by the Commission. If the Commission feels that the entire structure should be protected and is worthy of being called historic, then they should identify it as such in the motion. Commissioner LeWarne suggested that the balcony should also be identified as historic. Commissioner Marmion said that if the Commission desires, the recommendation could include the entire interior of the building. But then they need to consider the threshold for when a review would be required for future changes. COMMISSIONER LEWARNE ACCEPTED THE AMENDMENT. Vice Chair Waite suggested that perhaps the entire fagade, with the exception of post fenestration or windows done after 1950 should be identified as historic. He pointed out that the entire structure, as seen from the street, has been in place for over 50 years. Many of the windows have been there over 50 years and some even longer. However, some windows that are part of the fagade have not. Commissioner Marmion said it appears that the Commission would like to include all of the building except for the interior of the parsonage and other changes that have taken place to date since 1954. He felt this would meet the Commission's intent. COMMISSIONER MARMION REVISED HIS AMENDMENT TO STATE THAT THE NOMINATION BE SPECIFIC AND INCLUDE ALL ASPECTS OF THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING, EXCEPT FOR THE INTERIOR OF THE PARSONAGE AND THE MODIFICATIONS THAT HAVE HAPPENED TO THE PROPERTY SINCE ITS MAJOR REMODEL IN 1954. Reverend Crane said that Commissioner Marmion's original recommendation would make it easier for the building to move and grow with the congregation. While at the same time, it would fulfill the mission of historic integrity for the community. He questioned whether preservation needs to extend to the level that has just been described or if the goals for preservation would have been fulfilled with Commissioner Marmion's original recommendation. Commissioner Marmion explained that if a property owner approaches the Commission with a request to change a historic structure, the Commission could very well grant approval of the change if it would not really impact the historical nature of the building. Changes are not prohibited, but an extra step would be required in the permitting process. Reverend Crane inquired how the historic designation would impact the church's ability to change interior things like carpet or paint. Vice Chair Waite said that is why he suggested that only the exterior of the building be designated as historic. He said he does not feel the Commission needs to know about changes that are made to the interior of the building. He questioned the historic significance of the interior of the building. Reverend Crane suggested that the less intrusive the City's involvement is, the more palatable the congregation's position would be relative to the honor of being included on the Historic Register. When looking at the tradeoffs, adding a step to the process of changing the carpets or the color of the walls by inviting outside intervention, would make it increasingly difficult to build a consensus that this is something that would be good for the church, as a whole. Commissioner Marmion said that is while it is important for the Commission to be very specific about the elements of the structure that are historic and should be preserved. The portions of the church interior that appear to have historic significance are the ceiling structure, the entry area and the balcony, but the significance is related to the layout of the church and not the materials that were used. However, he said he did not view the baptistery. COMMISSIONER MARMION WITHDREW HIS AMENDMENT. The Commission discussed whether or not the baptistery should be one of the elements identified as historic. Vice Chair Waite said he does not see any architectural or engineering element of the baptistery that would make it historic other than its age. He again reminded the Commission that if the baptistery were identified on the Register, any changes would have to be approved by the Commission. He said he is hesitant to put restrictions on any elements of the interior with the exception of the glued lam beams. Ms. Campbell said that in looking at each of the interior and exterior elements and deciding whether they should be part of the nomination, they shouldn't evaluate each of the elements for their own qualities, but figure out if they are a contributing part to the overall integrity of the church. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 12, 2004 Page 10 Commissioner LeWarne suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate to delay the Commission's decision until the next meeting so that the Commission can develop a specific motion that identifies exactly what is being included. He said he would like to leave the nomination fairly general, but he can also understand the concerns raised by Commissioner Marmion. It is not the Commission's intent to hamper a property owner from doing small things, but perhaps it might appear that way. Commissioner Marmion said that the property owner would only have to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Commission if he or she wants to do something that would require a permit. This sets the scale of what types of projects would require Commission review, and carpet would be considered normal maintenance. Ms. Campbell agreed that the threshold for projects that would require a Certificate of Appropriateness would be those projects that require a permit. Because of this threshold, Commissioner Marmion agreed with Commissioner LeWarne that perhaps the nomination should be more general. Commissioner Kindness said that rather than breaking down each individual element of the building, she was thinking that the overall structure should be identified as historic. She felt it would meet all of the criteria that were designated. She said she believes the baptistery does have historic significance as part of the church. She said she wouldn't want to hamper the property owner from being able to change the carpet, the pews, etc. inside the building, and she did not feel that nominating the entire building would do that. Commissioner Marmion expressed his belief that the interior elements of the structure would meet all of the criteria as outlined by the staff. It is more than 50 years old, has integrity, and it is associated with the history from a cultural standpoint and arguably an architectural standpoint. In addition, it meets at least one of the eleven criteria listed. It could be argued that it is not just the building, itself, but also the function and interior of the building that satisfies the criteria. Commissioner Baker agreed with Commissioner Marmion. He said the entire building is more than 50 years old. He felt the whole building should be identified as historically significant. Commissioner Marmion said he would agree, with the exception of the things that have been altered such as the aluminum windows. Vice Chair Waite disagreed with Commissioner Marmion's assessment of the interior. He said the congregation has added the cultural heritage through their activities in the community. The exterior building is what is of historic significance. The activities that go on in the interior of the building do not have a direct link to the community. He questioned what significant elements exist in the interior of the building. He also questioned if the structure would lose its historic significance if the interior of the building were to change significantly. Commissioner LeWarne said there are situations where churches have been sold and converted into totally different functions. However, the buildings still retain their historic integrity on the outside. He concluded that even if something totally different were done to the inside of the building, it would still have architectural integrity that would allow it to be included on the Register. Commissioner Marmion noted that any change in use at the site would require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Commission. Ms. Campbell agreed that permits would apply to both building permits and planning permits. Reverend Crane said the church has found itself in a difficult spot. They want to be a player in the Edmonds community, and they don't want to be positioned as people who don't care about the history of Edmonds. They do care, and they have invested a lot of money in making the building better. But it would be easier for them if they could have the honor of supporting Edmonds history, but not have it be too invasive in terms of being able to do ministry and go forward with the adjustments they need to make. If possible, to fulfill the Commission's mission and to allow the church to do theirs, it would be more helpful it the historic significance applied to the external elements of the building and didn't add additional steps to whatever is done internally. Commissioner Marmion questioned if the Commission could do their assessment on historic significance and identify those parts of a structure that are eligible, but then allow a property owner to innumerate the parts of the structure they want to include on the Register. Ms. Campbell suggested that the Commission seek input from the State regarding this option. Commissioner LeWarne pointed out that the State Register identifies structures of historic significance, but it does not specifically delineate the various elements of a structure that are historical. The specific elements of a historic structure are discussed at the time that a permit application is filed. Commissioner Marmion said the important thing is for the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 12, 2004 Page 11 Commission to be specific about why they think the building is significant. They could nominate the whole building. If and when the property owner comes before the Commission for a permit review, the record for the nomination could be reviewed to identify the historical elements of the building. Ms. Campbell said staff recommends that the nomination be as specific as possible. She said the extent of changes that have occurred to the building over the years might raise questions in the future as to what elements are historically significant. Commissioner LeWarne suggested that the Historic Register Subcommittee come before the Commission at the next meeting with a specific motion concerning the application. He suggested that the application be tabled until that time. Vice Chair Waite said the Commission should seek input from the State as to whether the interior of a building would qualify as a component of historic significance. The Commission agreed this would be appropriate. Ms. Campbell clarified that the Commission discussed the need to gather information from the State about whether or not the Commission could nominate the whole building and then allow the property owner to identify those portions of the structure that should be included on the Register. The Commission agreed that staff should seek input as to how specific the nomination must be. In addition, they agreed that staff should seek feedback as to whether or not a property owner could choose which elements to have included on the Register. COMMISSIONER LEWARNE MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION BE TABLED FOR ONE MONTH SO THAT THE HISTORIC REGISTER SUBCOMMITTEE COULD COME BACK WITH A SPECIFIC PROPOSAL AT THE NEXT MEETING. COMMISSIONER MARMION SECONDED THE MOTION. Ms. Campbell suggested that the Commission indicate whether or not the public portion of the hearing would be closed or continued to the next meeting, as well. Commissioner LeWarne said his understanding is that the public has had an opportunity to provide feedback. Reverend Crane thanked the Commission for spending their time to review the application. He said this is an odd circumstance as to how the application came about. Instead of coming before the Commission with excitement and joy about being listed on the Register, the owners feel they have been put in a very awkward position. The church owners are trying to make a positive impact in Edmonds, but they are potentially in a position as being known as people who don't care about Edmonds. He is trying to avoid this perception, and at the same time, value and appreciate the work the Commission is doing. He questioned if there is a way for the Commission to get input from the property owners early in the process. This would allow the Commission to explain the pros and cons and move towards a preliminary decision before investing such a tremendous amount of time. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COMMISSIONER LEWARNE MOVED THAT THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING ON THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH APPLICATION BE CLOSED. COMMISSIONER KINDNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. Commissioner Marmion questioned if it would be appropriate to close the public hearing. If the public hearing remains open until the next meeting, there would be no need for the City to renotify the public. Ms. Campbell recommended that perhaps it would be better to continue the public hearing to the next meeting. COMMISSIONER MARMION RECOMMENDEDS THAT THE COMMISSION CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING, RESCINDING THE RESULTS OF THE PREVIOUS MOTION. COMMISSIONER KINDNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business scheduled on the agenda. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 12, 2004 Page 12 a. Administrative Subcommittee Report No Administrative Subcommittee report was provided. b. Communications Subcommittee Report No Communications Subcommittee report was provided. C. Historic Register Subcommittee Report No Historic Register Subcommittee report was provided. d. Incentives Subcommittee Report No Incentives Subcommittee Report was provided. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business on the agenda. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Ms. Campbell provided a written document on the inventory report. The consultant has provided a timeline and a rough draft of what she plans on doing. The Commission suggested that staff pass on the staff report and other documents associated with the application that was reviewed by the Commission earlier in the meeting. Ms. Campbell referred to a draft document that was prepared by Ms. Graff. She said her recollection is that the Commission revised the document, but she does not have an electronic version of the document that includes the changes made by the Commission. She only has the original document. She asked the Commissioners to look through their emails to find a version of the changed document. Commissioner Kindness clarified that the only change the Commission made was to the introductory paragraph. None of the steps were changed. Ms. Campbell distributed blank time sheets and asked the Commissioners to remember to report their time. Ms. Campbell recalled that the Commission previously discussed the option of using the Conference Room in the Frances Anderson Center for their public outreach program. She said that as soon as the Commission identifies a date, she would check the availability of the facility. The City is allowed to use the facility, but they don't take priority over paying customers. The Commission agreed that a date for the public outreach program should be discussed at the next meeting. Ms. Campbell said Louise Lindgren contacted the staff because she wanted a copy of the video and brochure to share with the Snohomish County Commission. Staff provided these documents to her. REVIEW OF NEXT MEETING'S PROPOSED AGENDA No specific comments were provided related to the proposed agenda for the next meeting. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CHAIR COMMENTS Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 12, 2004 Page 13 Vice Chair Waite distributed a document to each Commissioner titled, "Strengthening Communities Through Historic Preservation." HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEMBER COMMENTS Commissioner Kindness distributed copies of the Historic Redevelopment and Maintenance Codes of Edmonds, which were revised by the Commission. She asked that the Commission review this document and be prepared to provide comments at their next meeting. Commissioner Marmion encouraged the Commissioners to review the new website and provide their input. He asked the Incentives Subcommittee to provide specific examples of initiatives that could be identified on the website. He also needs pictures of Commissioners Waite, Kindness and Baker and Ms. Campbell. Commissioner Marmion said there are a few other properties that might come before the Commission in the near future. He contacted the Masonic Hall, but they have not gotten back to him yet. There is also a house at 850 Alder Street that is also being considered. He said the Commission must find a way to establish a database to catalogue information when members of the public contact Commissioners. Commissioner Marmion reminded the Commission that the context statement and historic inventory projects are in progress. In addition, a major Comprehensive Plan revision is being worked on. He suggested that the Commission use some of the output from the consultant work as they review the Comprehensive Plan. Possibly, some of the context statement language could be provided in the Comprehensive Plan revision that is going on this fall. He noted that the Planning Board has invited a representative of the Historic Preservation Commission to attend their work sessions and provide input regarding the Comprehensive Plan amendments. He asked if Chair Arnold would be responsible for identifying a representative to participate in the Planning Board work sessions. Ms. Campbell noted that the Planning Board's agendas are advertised on the City's website. ADJOURNMENT The Commission meeting was adjourned at 6:03 p.m. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 12, 2004 Page 14