2004-09-09 Historic Preservation Commission MinutesHISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES
September 9, 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 — 51 Avenue North.
PRESENT ABSENT
Stephen Waite, Vice Chair Chuck LeWarne (excused)
Darrell Marmion
Ed Baker
Barbara Kindness (arrived at 3:40 p.m.)
Michael Plunkett (arrived at 3:42 p.m.)
2. READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Star Campbell, Planner
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
COMMISSIONER MARMION MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 2004 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED.
COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Commissioner Marmion requested that Page 9 of the August 12' minutes be changed to include a negative comment made
by a member of the public prior to exiting the meeting. Council Member Plunkett reminded the Commission that the written
minutes are summary. The detailed minutes can be found on the tape-recorded message, and summary minutes usually do
not include outbursts and personal vindictives, etc. While it is up to the Commission to decide whether these types of
comments should be included, he did not feel they should have a place in the minutes. The Commission discussed that only
those comments that are provided by the public in a formal setting, after providing their name and address, should be
included in the written record. Commissioner Marmion said he intended his motion to approve the minutes to include the
change on Page 9.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL MEMBER PLUNKETT VOICED HIS OPPOSITION TO THE
MOTION.
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as written.
4. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
There was no one in the audience who desired to comment during this portion of the meeting.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ON FILE NUMBER HP-03-114 — NOMINATION OF FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF
EDMONDS (continued from August 121h Meeting)
Commissioner Marmion recalled that the Commission tabled this issue with an action to confer with a staff member from the
Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation to get their advise on how the Commission should handle two items. The
first question was how specific the Commission must be in their nomination and recommendation. The second question was
once a recommendation is made, can a property owner, when electing to place the property on the Register, pick and choose
from the things the Commission found were significant. He reminded the Commission that they were to come back with
specific motion language based on the information from the State.
Commissioner Marmion reported that both he and Mr. Chave spoke with the staff member from the Office of Archeology
and Historic Preservation. He advised that it is up to the Commission as to how specific the nomination and recommendation
must be. However, he did provide guidance on what they typically like to see. He encouraged the Commission to be as
specific as possible, without spending hours reviewing every project. He recommended using what many communities call
"a list of character defining features," to narrow down the scope for a given project. For examples, he suggested that interior
features could be included if they were significant things such as built in bookcases, a fireplace hearth, coved ceiling,
staircase, banister, etc. He recommended that, in the future, when projects come before the Commission for review, they
develop a starting list in the staff report of the things they consider are the significant features. Mr. Chave added that the
point was made that the more vague a nomination or recommendation is, the more difficult it would be to review a Certificate
of Appropriateness for the site at a future time. It is helpful to be more specific upfront.
Commissioner Marmion reported that the State staff representative advised that it is also up to the Commission to decide if
they want to allow an applicant to pick and choose the things that are identified on the Register as historic. However, he said
the State discourages this type of approach since the validity of the procedure might be called into question when property
owners seek special valuation or other tax incentives beyond the local level. The State staff representative recommended that
whatever portions of the property are identified in the package that is approved by the City Council should be included on the
register, as well. A property owner should not be allowed to pick and choose.
Commissioner Marmion said that based on feedback from the State staff representative, he drafted a recommendation for the
Commission to consider for approval of the application. The intent is that any motion recommending approval of a property
to be included on the Register would list specific character defining features of the structure. Mr. Chave agreed that the
overall approach identified in the draft language provided by Commissioner Marmion is a step in the right direction, but the
Commission might have some disagreement about the specific aspects of the structure that should be identified as historic.
Commissioner Marmion suggested that if the Commission wants to move forward with a recommendation similar to his
draft, they should then decide exactly what portions of the building should be listed as character defining features.
Vice Chair Waite said he also spoke with the Architectural Historian in the State Office of Archeology and Historic
Preservation on this topic. His observation was quite similar to the one obtained by Commissioner Marmion. However, he
suggested that the Commission could designate the entire building and then make specific observations about the building,
such as features that have changed recently. These observations would be helpful in the future when the Commission
reviews a Certificate of Appropriateness. He summarized that while it is important to identify the historic features of a
structure, it would also be appropriate to identify those that are not historical.
Commissioner Marmion recalled that at the end of the last meeting, the Commission had concluded the applicant and public
testimony period and were involved in Commission deliberations. They had all agreed that it would be appropriate to include
the property on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. However, they got hung up on the point of how to document the
specific features that were of historic significance.
Since the issue is a legislative matter, Council Member Plunkett said it is entirely up to the Commission to decide if they
want to open the public testimony portion of the hearing again and allow citizens to comment further on the application. The
Commission agreed this would be appropriate.
Reverend Crane advised that he had to get back to the church for a staff meeting. However, he said he would be willing to
answer any further questions the Commission might have regarding the application. Vice Chair Waite recalled that at the last
meeting he spoke regarding the interior of the structure. From a historical, physical and architectural point of view, he said
he was probably not efflorescent in his comments about the baptistery, which was not his intent. He said he hopes his
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 9, 2004 Page 2
observations were not offensive to the public in attendance. His intent was to provide a factual observation regarding this
portion of the structure. Reverend Crane said he understood the intent of Vice Chair Waite's comments, and he appreciated
his sensitivity at the last meeting in being very careful not to speak negatively against any portion of the structure.
Reverend Crane inquired if he would be contacted regarding the Commission's decision on the matter. Ms. Campbell
indicated that Reverend Crane would receive a copy of the minutes from the meeting. She would also be willing to call him
to inform him of the Commission's recommendation. Reverend Crane said that would be helpful.
Mr. Chave inquired if the church has any particular plans or ideas for future modifications of the structure. Reverend Crane
explained that when a new congregation is started, it is difficult to know whether it will grow substantially or remain at a
certain size. If the congregation grows substantially, this would force all kinds of other issues. Right now, they conduct two
services on Sunday morning, and the plan for this facility would be to simply add services as they become necessary. He said
he does not anticipate any significant changes to the structure in the future. If the congregation were to grow too much, they
would have to look at other possibilities to address their needs. They briefly considered some ideas that would enhance the
aesthetics such as stained glass windows. However, the dynamic is how much should be invested in an old structure to make
it more aesthetically pleasing if you are not necessarily going to be using it continually.
Mr. Chave inquired if there are any maintenance issues that could be a concern in the future. Reverent Crane said they have
talked about installing fans to help with ventilation inside the church. In addition, the access is not good for senior citizens,
and they have also discussed the idea of putting in a ramp to make the building more accessible. There are some lower floor
doors that could be converted to provide handicapped access. They also need to replace numerous windows, since the church
deferred maintenance over the years as the congregation diminished in size. A member of the congregation has experience
with replacing these windows, and they are trying to find windowpanes that would match what currently exists. Some of the
windows that were replaced as part of the remodel on the parsonage side have failed and need to be replaced even though
they are only about 20 years old. There is some dry rot on the building that will also need some attention at some point.
Other than those issues, he said the building has good integrity. He encouraged the Commissioners to visit the church again,
since it was in a state of disrepair when they made their first visit.
Mr. Chave said that as the Commission discusses the portions of the building that should be designated as historic, they
should keep in mind the normal types of maintenance activities that are likely to occur. In particular, it is important to note
any special plans that might impact an element the Commission was considering for historic designation.
Commissioner Kindness recalled that at the last meeting, Reverend Crane expressed concern that the Commission would
make their recommendation too broad so that the church would not be allowed to do certain maintenance and repair projects
without permission from the Commission. Mr. Chave said it is important for the Commission not to preclude positive
changes to the building that would enhance its character and take it back towards its original appearance. He suggested it
would be valuable to call out the individual paned windows as an important aspect of the exterior that is worth maintaining in
the future. It would also be valuable to call out the general shape of the paned windows since they contribute to the overall
appearance. Any restoration or maintenance should retain this same shape. It would be helpful to the staff when reviewing
future changes to the building if these specific items were listed in the Commission's recommendation to the City Council.
He continued by identifying some of the elements that could be called out in the Commission's recommendation.
Commissioner Kindness recalled that the paramount issue of concern for the applicant was the change that was made to the
name of the church. However, this is not within the Commission's purview. Commissioner Marmion agreed. He noted that
the application form and database must include both the historical and the common name of the structure. However, the tax
identification number and the address is what actually describes the building. Commissioner Kindness inquired if the plaque
that is placed on the building would identify the specific features of the structure that are historic. The Commission agreed
that the plaque would only include the name of the building, and would not break down the various historic elements of the
structure.
Vice Chair Waite suggested that the entire exterior (envelope and fenestration) of the building should be designated as
historic, with the exception of the windows that were installed in the parsonage about 20 years ago. Mr. Chave inquired if
the Commission would want to allow the church to change the color of the building. Council Member Plunkett suggested
that if the Commission were to include color of the exterior paint, the applicant would not likely accept the designation. It is
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 9, 2004 Page 3
unlikely that anyone would want to be included on the Register if it would require that they obtain Commission approval to
paint the structure. Commissioner Marmion said the Commission must decide whether the color of the building is something
that makes it historically significant, and he is not sure this should be an issue of concern. Council Member Plunkett pointed
that if the property owner were to paint the building an outlandish color, the Commission would have the ability to remove
the property from the register.
Commissioner Marmion suggested that it is important to call out specific elements such as the steeple, the fagade, the north
and south walls that were part of the original building, the true divided lights, etc. These are the types of things that can be
listed specifically. Vice Chair Waite suggested that perhaps it would be more efficient to assign a few of the Commissioners
to prepare the list of details. Commissioner Baker agreed that it would be helpful to inventory the portions of the building
that are historic and perhaps take some photographs of these features.
Commissioner Kindness proposed that Commissioners Baker and Marmion prepare an inventory list to identify the historic
features of the church. Commissioner Marmion said he would be willing to prepare the list, but he questioned if it is
appropriate to postpone a Commission recommendation for another month. Council Member Plunkett said that if the
Commission is leaning towards deciding that the structure meets the eligibility requirements for inclusion on the Register,
they could make a recommendation now that the outside structure is eligible subject to a final determination of the
architectural details. Commissioner Marmion suggested that it would be more appropriate for the Commission to postpone
their recommendation until the next meeting when an inventory list of the historic features of the building is available for the
Commission's review. Mr. Chave agreed that this would be a correct approach. He said it is important for the Commission
to get the procedure right, since it will make future applications easier to review. The Commission concurred.
Mr. Chave said that, with future applications, the applicant should really prepare the list of features for the Commission's
consideration. The application before the Commission now has been changed so many times, it is vague as to what is
original and what is not, etc. He said he anticipates that future applications will be easier for the Commission to review.
Commissioner Marmion suggested that language be provided in the application that would prompt an applicant to generate
the list of features. Ms. Campbell suggested that the National Park Service brochure could be used as a guide since it
provides a list of "character defining features." Issues such as shape, features of the roof, openings of the building, etc. are all
identified on this list.
Commissioner Baker suggested that it would also be helpful to provide photographs of the significant features of the
building. Mr. Chave agreed this would be helpful. Ms. Campbell pointed out that the application includes numerous
photographs of both the interior and exterior of the building, but the individual features were not pointed out.
Vice Chair Waite inquired how the creation of a detailed list of character defining features would be different from how the
Commission got hung up on the details at the last meeting. Commissioner Marmion replied that the Commission got hung up
trying to work out the details in a public hearing setting. He recalled that when the museum application was considered the
entire building was identified, with only a few exceptions. However, this application requires a more detailed list.
COMMISSIONER MARMION MOVED THAT THE HISTORIC REGISTER SUBCOMMITTEE TAKE THE PROPOSED
MOTION LANGUAGE AND ENUMERATE THE LIST OF CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES FOR THE FULL
COMMISSION TO REVIEW AT THE NEXT MEETING. COMMISSIONER KINDNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Vice Chair Waite inquired if the Commission would, in some shape or form, recommend inclusion of the property on the
Register. Commissioner Marmion pointed that none of the Commissioners provided comments that would be in opposition
to a positive recommendation for this application. Mr. Chave summarized that the consensus of the Commission is to
recommend that the structure go on the register, but that they are still working out the specific details. The Commission's
recommendation would not be forwarded to the City Council until the details have been worked out.
Commissioner Kindness asked how much notice must be provided to City Council in order to get this item on their agenda.
Since the Commission foresees having the wording in place after the next meeting, she suggested that perhaps they should
get this item on the City Council's list of extended agenda items. Council Member Plunkett agreed that it would be
appropriate to contact the City Council President with a request that this item be placed on a future agenda. He suggested
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 9, 2004 Page 4
that the Commission should also get in the habit of sending a memorandum to the City Council outlining recommendations
and requesting time on their agenda. Commissioner Marmion noted that the last page of the application would be forwarded
to the City Council. Council Member Plunkett advised that the Commission Chair would have to work with the City Council
President and staff to write the item up for the City Council presentation.
Council Member Plunkett summarized that the Commission anticipates making a final recommendation on the application at
the October meeting. The Commission's recommendation would then be forwarded to the City Council. He said he
anticipates the item could be placed on the City Council's agenda sometime before the end of the year. Mr. Chave recalled
that the City Council held a public hearing on the museum application before making a final decision, and that is what they
have decided the process should be for all applications for the Edmonds Register of Historic Places.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Commissioner Marmion inquired if Commissioners Waite, Kindness and Baker are going to provide photographs for the
Commission web page. Commissioner Kindness said she has tried to forward a picture of herself to Commissioner Marmion
electronically. Commissioner Marmion said that if the other Commissioners want to have their pictures on the website, they
should provide one to him by the end of the month.
Commissioner Marmion reminded the Commission that one of their roles is to serve as the City's primary resource in matters
of history, historic planning and preservation. He suggested that the Commission needs to have a presence at the Planning
Board meetings when they are discussing issues that are related to historic preservation or when they are considering
Comprehensive Plan amendments that would impact historic preservation. At this time, the Planning Board is discussing the
historic part of downtown, but the Commission has not provided their input to date.
Council Member Plunkett said that an administrative device must be created and enacted to enable the Commission to get out
in front and become involved in the process early. Commissioner Marmion advised that the Planning Board Chair has
indicated that they are open to receiving comments from the Historic Preservation Commission. Council Member Plunkett
suggested that someone on the Commission should be put in charge of keeping track of Planning Board issues and notifying
the Commission when something related to historic preservation comes up. This person could either speak on behalf of the
Commission or designate another Commissioner to speak at the Planning Board meetings.
Vice Chair Waite asked that Commissioner Marmion review the Planning Board's agendas for topics related to historic
preservation. If there are topics of interest to the Commission, they could rotate Commission representatives.
Commissioner Kindness suggested that perhaps a representative of the Commission should attend the Planning Board
meetings at least once a month, whether or not they are discussing items related to historic preservation. Mr. Chave
suggested that rather than just attend the Planning Board meetings, the Commission could designated a member to monthly
contact the Planning Board Chair to discuss issues that are coming up. He suggested that merely attending the Planning
Board meetings might not be the best use of the Commissioners' time. He noted that the Planning Board Chair meets with
the Mayor and the Architectural Design Board Chair on a monthly basis to discuss issues of mutual concern. He suggested
that this would also be appropriate for the Historic Preservation Commission. The Commission concurred. Since
Commissioner LeWarne is the chair of the Administrative Subcommittee, Commissioner Marmion was directed to contact
him and ask him to set up a meeting with the Planning Board Chair.
Council Member Plunkett said he recently was contacted by a citizen asking why the Commission did not work to preserve
the old high school in light of the fact that it is on the State and National Historic Registers. Commissioner Marmion recalled
that Natalie Shippen approached the Commission a few years ago, and the Commission's consensus was that the ordinance
did not have any teeth to stop the building from coming down. The ordinance is purely voluntary. Council Member Plunkett
inquired if this consensus was communicated to Ms. Shippen. Council Member Marmion answered that Ms. Shippen was in
attendance at the meeting at which this issue was discussed. Council Member Plunkett inquired if the Commission discussed
their consensus with the Public Facilities District. Commissioner Marmion said they approached the Public Facilities District
regarding the idea of salvaging bricks to build some kind of memorial. Mr. Chave agreed that the Commission did contact
the Public Facilities District, and they also learned more about the project. Commissioner Marmion noted that the
Commission had just gotten started when Ms. Shippen approached them. Vice Chair Waite noted that the Commission had
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 9, 2004 Page 5
not even obtained Certified Local Government status at the time. He also pointed out that Ms. Shippen had every opportunity
to nominate the building, but she did not do so.
Commissioner Marmion recalled that one of the Commission's responsibilities, as outlined in their charter, is to notify the
City Council when they see issues of land use that will impact historic properties in the City. Therefore, they should have
brought this issue to the attention of the City Council. Council Member Plunkett pointed out that the actions taking place at
the old high school site were well down the road before the Commission really got started. It was really too late for the
Commission to have an impact. The Commission agreed that in the future, they should be more proactive in bringing issues
before the City Council.
Ms. Campbell suggested that Council Member Plunkett contact Steve Bullock, who is reviewing the Public Facility District's
proposal. He understands a little more about their ideas for the preserving some of the significant buildings on the site.
7. NEW BUSINESS
COMMISSIONER KINDNESS MOVED THAT COMMISSIONER WAITE BE ELECTED AS THE NEW CHAIR OF
THE COMMISSION UNTIL THE END OF 2004. COMMISSIONER MARMION SECONDED THE MOTION. THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMIOUSLY, WITH COMMISSIONER WAITE ABSTAINING.
COMMISSIONER MARMION MOVED THAT COMMISSIONER KINDNESS BE ELECTED AS THE NEW VICE
CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION UNTIL THE END OF 2004. COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, WITH COMMISSIONER KINDNESS ABSTAINING.
8. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
a. Administrative Subcommittee Report
There was no report provided by the Administrative Subcommittee.
b. Communications Subcommittee Report
There was no report provided by the Communications Subcommittee.
C. Historic Register Subcommittee Report
There was no report provided by the Historic Register Subcommittee.
d. Incentives Subcommittee Report
There was no report provided by the Incentives Subcommittee.
9. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Ms. Campbell reminded the Commissioners to fill out their time sheets to reflect any time they have spent associated with
inventory project.
10. REVIEW OF NEXT MEETING'S PROPOSED AGENDA
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 9, 2004 Page 6
Chair Waite reminded the Commission that they would conclude their review and recommendation for File Number HP-03-
144 at the October 14t' meeting.
11. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Waite provided no additional comments during this portion of the meeting.
12. HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEMBER COMMENTS
Commissioner Marmion said he had a good discussion with the property owners at 850 Alder Street, and they are doing some
more research to get their application filled out. He said he would like to talk to Council Member Plunkett about the
possibility of putting together some materials for educating people. He said he has tried to get in touch with the Masonic
Hall, but they have not called him back. He would keep trying to contact them.
Commissioner Marmion reported that the Commission's 5-minute video is now working on their web page.
Commissioner Kindness said she was contacted by Bill Sheets from THE EVERETT HERALD asking for updated
information on the inventory. She was on vacation, but she gave him Commissioner LeWarne's phone number. Ms.
Campbell added that Commissioner LeWarne contacted her to find out the status, and she would assume he forwarded this
information to Mr. Sheets.
Mr. Chave reported that the historic inventory consultant is working with the staff to identify all of the various sites. She has
identified at least 75 sites for initial inventory forms to be filled out and is working to get them into the State's database.
Chair Waite inquired if Joni Sine from the Museum receives a copy of the Commission minutes. If not, he encouraged staff
to forward the minutes to her via the email. In addition, the minutes should be forwarded to the chairs of the Planning Board
and the Arts Commission. Council Member Plunkett suggested that the minutes also be emailed to each of the City Council
Members.
The Commission acknowledged and recognized the great work that Commissioner Marmion did in developing the
Commission's website. It lends a tremendous amount of credibility to the Commission, and shows that they are organized
and going somewhere.
13. ADJOURNMENT
The Commission meeting was adjourned at 5:01 p.m.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 9, 2004 Page 7