2004-10-14 Historic Preservation Commission MinutesHISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES
October 14, 2004
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting of the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission was called to order at 3:35 p.m. in the 3rd Floor Conference
Room of City Hall, 121 — 51 Avenue North.
PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
Barbara Kindness, Vice Chair Steve Waite, Chair (excused) Star Campbell, Planner
Ed Baker Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Darrell Marmion
Chuck LeWarne
Councilmember Michael Plunkett
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of September 9, 2004 were approved unanimously.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
Councilmember Plunkett said he talked with Chair Waite about the possibility of inviting the citizens who are interested in
becoming a Commissioner to the next meeting. In addition, Chair Waite discussed the possibility of adding a new
Commissioner position so there would be a total of seven voting Commissioners instead of six.
The Commission agreed that the issue of selecting a new Commissioner should be added to the agenda. In addition, they
agreed to add a discussion about creating a new Commission position as requested by Chair Waite. Ms. Campbell pointed
out that the issue of new Commissioner applications was already on the agenda as Item 9a. She also pointed out that in order
to add an additional position to the Commission, the by-laws and the ordinance would have to be changed. This issue was
placed on the agenda as Item 8a.
REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
There was no one in the audience.
PUBLIC HEARING
There were no public hearings scheduled on the agenda.
Decision to Determine the Eligibility of the First Baptist Church of Edmonds for Placement on the Edmonds Register
of Historic Places
Commissioner Marmion reviewed that the Historic Register Subcommittee was given the assignment to put together an
inventory list of the character determining features of the First Baptist Church. He said that he and Commissioner Baker
toured the church and created a more detailed list. To aid in their analysis, they used Technical Brief 17 from the National
Parks Service, which discusses the different ways to look at a building when trying to identify features. At the end of the
brief is an architectural character checklist, which places all of the items talked about in the beginning of the document into a
one -page summary, asking questions and leaving a place to take notes.
Commissioner Marmion provided each of the Commissioners with a copy of the Historic Register Subcommittee's
recommended list of character determining features for the church. He explained that they used the architectural character
checklist referred to earlier to create the list. He reviewed each of the items on the list as follows:
1. Shape: The general church layout, with the north and south walls being from the original church, is a significant
contributor to the historical property of the building. The rear attachment (the part added on in the back) does not
contribute the architectural history of the building.
2. Roof and Roof Features: There was nothing of note in the roof features that added to the significant historic
property of the building.
3. Openings (entry ways, etc.): The front entrance and stairs of the church were determined to have historic value. In
addition, the windows in the main church (the 5-pane, the 6 over 6 double hung, and the 6 over 9 double hung) are
also important features. The windows on the rear annex are aluminum so they are not considered historically
important. If any changes to the rear of the building are proposed in the future, the City should encourage the use of
window style similar to the rest of the building.
4. Projections: The steeple, with the belfry and dome cap across the top, is a key feature of the building. The front
porch, with its gabled roof and turn posts are also important historical aspects of the building.
5. Trim and Secondary Features: There was nothing real noteworthy about the trim and details on the exterior of the
building, other than they were plain. To do something very ornate with the building would probably not be
appropriate.
6. Materials: For the most part, the materials on the exterior of the building have not been preserved. It appears that
some old shingles are below the existing shingles.
7. Setting: Even though the change in setting of the building is tied to its history, the setting is not a key feature of the
building's historical significance. Moving the building would not cause any loss to the historic significance of the
structure.
8. Materials at Close Range: There was nothing of note in the materials at close range.
9. Craft Details: There are no craft details that need to be noted on the list of character determining features of the
building.
10. Individual Rooms and Areas: The most significant room is the sanctuary. The others are not necessary tied to the
character determining features.
11. Related Spaces: The way the rooms are all tied together is not of historic importance to this style of building. In
fact, the entry way has been changed since the Commission visited the structure a few months ago. It is more open
that it was previously.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
October 14, 2004 Page 2
12. Interior Features: Because there have been so many changes to the details, nothing other than the structure of the
ceiling was noted as a character determining feature.
13. Surface Finish and Materials: The surface finish and materials have been changed significantly, and are not noted
as important historical features of the structure.
14. Exposed Structures: The ceiling structure, with the glue -lam beams is included on the list as a significant feature.
It is important to note that the ceiling structure has never been painted or refinished.
Commissioner Baker recalled that when the Commission visited the church, they were taken specifically to the baptistery.
He questioned if this room was included on the proposed list. Commissioner Marmion said it was not, but he reminded the
Commission that the draft list was intended to be a starting place. Additional features could be added by the Commissioners
throughout their discussion. Commissioner LeWarne said his understanding was that the baptistery was moved to the new
location from the original church site. Commissioner Baker suggested that perhaps the baptistery should be added to the list
of character determining features. Commissioner Marmion said that if the Commissioners want to list the overall room,
itself, it should be placed on the list under "individual rooms and areas." But if they are concerned more about the feature of
the baptistery, it could be included under "individual spaces." They could also list the materials and finishes. The
Commission agreed that the baptistery should be included on the list under "interior features."
Commissioner LeWarne referred to Item 8 (Materials at Close Range) and noted that the roof is essentially the same shape as
it had been prior to the 1950's. Commissioner Marmion said the roof has been re -pitched. Commissioner Baker added that
the roof cannot be the original because there are parts that are glue laminated, and this method was not available when the
church was originally built. It was not available until after World War II. Commissioner LeWarne pointed out that the roof
could still be older than 50 years. Commissioner Marmion said that regarding the roof features, the technical report is
referring to specific, ornate structures of the roof. He reviewed features on the basis of whether any historic significance
would be lost if the roof were changed. He pointed out that changes could be made to the exterior of the roof that would not
have an impact on the ceiling, which has been identified as historically important to the structure.
Commissioner LeWarne pointed out that the trim of the building is rather similar to what it has been for more than 50 years.
Commissioner Marmion agreed. That is why he noted that the style is very simple in detail.
The Commission discussed whether or not the balcony should be identified on the list of character determining features.
Commissioner Marmion said the Historic Register Subcommittee struggled with whether the balcony space should be tied in
with the sanctuary. He said it appears that the Commission agrees that the historic significance is related to the spaces, and
not necessarily the materials that are in the spaces since they have been changed so much. The Commission agreed that it is
important to preserve the layout of the interior, and therefore, the balcony should be included on the list. Commissioner
Marmion summarized that the individual spaces identified on the list would include the balcony, the baptistery and the
sanctuary. These features could also be listed under the section "related spaces."
Commissioner Kindness suggested that the term "main worship room" on the list should be changed to "sanctuary." The
remainder of the Commissioners agreed.
COMMISSIONER MARMION MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH (404 BELL STREET) IS ELIGIBLE TO BE PLACED ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER
OF HISTORIC PLACES, WITH THE LIST OF THE KEY FEATURES ON THE INCLUDED 4-PAGE DOCUMENT,
THE TWO ADDITIONS (BALCONY AND BAPTISTRY) AND THE CLARIFICATION THAT THE MAIN WORSHIP
ROOM IS THE SANCTUARY. COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Commissioner LeWarne inquired if Commissioner Marmion is suggesting that the fore mentioned technical brief be
incorporated into the Commission's format for reviewing applications in the future. Commissioner Marmion said he would
recommend that when an application comes before the Commission for review in the future, either the applicant or the staff
should have already made an attempt to address the points identified in the technical report. The remainder of the
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
October 14, 2004 Page 3
Commission concurred. When making a recommendation to the City Council, the Commission's action should be
accompanied by a clear list of the features that are considered historically significant.
Councilmember Plunkett advised that the Commission's recommendation for the First Baptist Church application must now
be scheduled on the City Council's agenda. He advised that staff is familiar with how to write a paper for the City Council's
agenda. He suggested that the Historic Register Subcommittee work with Ms. Campbell to prepare the write up for
presentation to the City Council. Once the write up is finished, the item could be moved to the City Council President and
scheduled for a hearing before the City Council. He suggested that perhaps the applicant and the Historic Register
Subcommittee should work hand -in -hand in making a presentation to the City Council prior to the hearing being opened to
the public. Vice Chair Kindness asked that Ms. Campbell advise the Commissioners on the date of the City Council hearing
so that as many Commissioners as possible could attend.
Commissioner LeWarne suggested that the Commission should convey their thanks and appreciation to Ms. Hanby, her
committee, Reverend Crane and his committee for their involvement in the application. He said it is important to recognize
that because this application was one of the first to come before the Commission, the review process was very long and
belabored.
Councilmember Plunkett advised that once the application is scheduled on the City Council's agenda, a letter must be sent to
the applicant and the church representatives. Ms. Campbell said everyone who is considered a party of record would be sent
a copy of the minutes from the meeting. They would also receive a copy of the City Council item once it has been prepared.
1. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
a. Administrative Subcommittee Renort
Commissioner LeWarne said he had meant to apply for a lodging grant for the Commission's brochure. He thought the
deadline was in September, but when he inquired about it he found the deadline had passed. He was told that Frances Chapin
also has a fund for things related to the arts. However, she indicated that they are interested in things that encourage tourism,
and he is not sure the Commission's project would even qualify. The brochure is an explanatory brochure rather than one
intended to bring tourists into the City. He requested direction from the Commission on how they want to proceed.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled that the Commission has discussed on previous occasions that the grant funding was for
projects related to tourism. The Commission has also discussed how they could tailor their approach to address this goal. He
recalled that the Commission agreed that it was important to submit an application for the grant funding. He suggested that
the Commission move forward as planned by applying for grant opportunities and t loring their message to meet the
requirements of the grant.
Vice Chair Kindness recalled that the draft brochure she prepared focused on a historic walking tour of Edmonds. The other
piece that was prepared by Commissioner Arnold was intended to help owners of historic properties and show them how easy
it is to be listed on the register. The Commission can either try to make the grant review committee believe that this brochure
is a tourism piece, or they can do another brochure that focuses on the outside community. She suggested that the
Commission's current brochure is not as sellable as a tourism piece as the draft that provided pictures of various historic
places in the community.
Commissioner LeWarne said he would inquire further with Frances Chapin regarding opportunities for grant funding. He
said he would also check regarding upcoming deadline for future grant opportunities.
Commissioner LeWarne said the Administrative Subcommittee was charged with the responsibility of reviewing an
amendment to the by-laws related to owners who objected to their properties being placed on the register. He provided a
draft of an amendment that he prepared to address the Commission's intent. Commissioner LeWarne clarified that the
current language requires that the Commission's recommendation, application, supporting documentation, and the owner's
acknowledgement be forwarded to the City Council for final determination. His understanding was that Commissioner
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
October 14, 2004 Page 4
Marmion felt they should also have a provision that would allow a property owner to opt out. The proposed amendment
would add an additional sentence to allow this to happen.
Commissioner Marmion said the significant issue that was discussed by the Commission was whether or not the property
owner should be required to sign for agreement before or after the application is forwarded to the City Council. The current
by-laws require the property owner to provide agreement before the application is forwarded to the City Council. The
Commission agreed it would be more appropriate for the owner approval to be required after the City Council approved the
application. Commissioner LeWarne noted that his proposed language would not meet the Commission's intent.
Ms. Campbell recalled that Mr. Chave provided a suggested amendment that he felt would meet the Commission's intent.
She provided a copy of his proposed amendment. The Commission reviewed Mr. Chave's proposed language. Ms.
Campbell explained that Mr. Chave has clarified that, according to the existing code, the action by the City Council to
approve a property for listing can only be done with an affirmative signature of the property owner. He indicated the
importance of keeping the by-laws consistent with the ordinance.
Commissioner Marmion pointed out if Mr. Chave's recommended language were adopted, the latest an owner could give
approval would be after the City Council's review but before the ordinance is written. However, this would not prohibit the
owner from offering approval sooner. The Commission agreed that Mr. Chave's proposed language would be appropriate.
They agreed to place this item on the November I I' agenda. In the meantime, the staff and Administrative Subcommittee
would research how to amend the by-laws. They asked that staff forward a fresh copy of the by-laws to each of the
Commissioners.
Commissioner LeWarne said that upon reviewing the minutes from the past meeting, he learned that he was given the
assignment of contacting the chair of the Planning Board. He said he would do this prior to the next meeting.
b. Communications Subcommittee Reuort
Vice Chair Kindness said that she would report the Commission's action on the First Baptist Church in the upcoming press
release.
Vice Chair Kindness noted that some pictures were still missing from the Commission's website. She said she forwarded a
picture, but it has not been included yet. Commissioner Marmion said he has had some problems with his software. Vice
Chair Kindness inquired if any of the Commissioners had ideas for additional items that could be reported on the website,
such as the Commission's action on the First Baptist Church. Commissioner Marmion said he would provide a picture of the
property and a brief report on the Commission's action.
Councilmember Plunkett suggested that the Communications Subcommittee should begin to discuss how the Commission
would deal with the information that comes back from the historic inventory consultant, especially since this information
should be available soon. He recalled that the Commission previously discussed the possibility of scheduling an event, and
he suggested that the Communications Subcommittee could start giving some consideration as to how and what the
Commission would communicate when the inventory information becomes available.
Ms. Campbell said the final draft of the historic inventory would be available for the Commission's review in November.
She reminded that the Commission had asked staff to check for the availability of the room above the Library. Once the
Commission has identified some possible dates, staff could follow through with this request.
Councilmember Plunkett suggested that the Communications Subcommittee work with staff since they have good ideas on
how to present community forums. They have held several successful events in the past months. Commissioner LeWarne
suggested that they should estimate how many people would attend the Commission's event. He said he would be concerned
about scheduling a large room. If they had a smaller room and people were crowded, it would give the feeling that more
people were in attendance.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
October 14, 2004 Page 5
The Commission agreed that the Communications Subcommittee should work with staff to schedule and plan for a
Commission open house, perhaps as early as February of 2005.
C. Historic Register Subcommittee Report
The Historic Register Subcommittee had no additional items to report to the Commission. Commissioner Marmion reported
that there are some possible applications that could come before the Commission for review in the future: the Masonic
Temple and a single-family home.
d. Incentives Subcommittee Report
The Incentives Subcommittee did not have any additional items to report.
NEW BUSINESS
A Discussion Regarding the Possibilitv of Adding Another Member to the Commission
Vice Chair Kindness suggested that since none of the Commissioners had a copy of the current by-laws available for review,
the Commission should postpone this discussion until the next meeting.
Councilmember Plunkett suggested that the Commission should at least decide if they want to proceed with the concept. He
said he would support the addition of one more member to the Commission. Right now, they only have six voting members,
and they really should have an odd number. In addition, it would be helpful to have someone else to help with the workload.
He said he does not see any downside to adding another person, and the City has received four applications for the position.
COMMISSIONER LEWARNE MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION MOVE FORWARD WITH AMENDING THE
COMMISSION BY-LAWS AND ORDINANCE TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS BY ADDING A
LAY PERSON POSITION. COMMISSIONER MARMION SECONDED THE MOTION.
Commissioner Marmion clarified that the amendment would increase the number of total Commissioners to eight, with seven
being voting members. The new position would be a non-professional participant. The Commission directed the staff to
prepare an agenda item for the proposed change and forward it to the City Council for consideration.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
a. Commissioner Position Auulications
Councilmember Plunkett reported that Commissioner Waite suggested that applicants for the vacant Commission position be
invited to the next Commission meeting for interviews prior to sending a recommendation to the Mayor. The other option
would be for the Commission to review the applications and make a recommendation to the Mayor.
Vice Chair Kindness inquired if the Mayor would wait another month for the Commission to come up with a
recommendation. Councilmember Plunkett said he would assume the Mayor would be willing to wait to make an
appointment.
Commissioner LeWarne questioned the normal procedure for appointing members to boards and commissions within the
City. He said his understanding was that the Mayor made these appointments, and that the existing board and commission
members do not take an active role in the selection process. He questioned if the Mayor has asked the Commission to review
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
October 14, 2004 Page 6
the applications and make a recommendation, or did the Commission request this opportunity. Councilmember Plunkett said
his recollection is that the Commission initiated this issue. The Mayor has indicated that the Commission could review the
applications and provide a recommendation for him to consider.
Councilmember Plunkett contacted Mayor Haakenson regarding the issue. Mayor Haakenson advised that as long as the
Commission understands that they are going to make a recommendation only, they could take as much time as they want. It
would be acceptable for the Commission to take the extra time to interview the candidates.
The Commission agreed that the Commission should invite all four candidates to the November IIth meeting for brief
interviews. They agreed that Councilmember Plunkett would send letters of invitation to each of the applicants on behalf of
the Commission. Because of the additional agenda items that have already been placed on the November 111 agenda, they
discussed the option of starting their next meeting at 3:00 p.m. This would allow them to interview each candidate for five to
ten minutes prior to the regular meeting agenda starting at 3:30 p.m.
They agreed that the process should be very informal. The Commission agreed to start the next meeting at the regular time.
Councilmember Plunkett would prepare a letter of invitation for each of the applicants. The applicants would be interviewed
individually, and then the Commission could prepare their recommendation to the Mayor. They agreed that this item should
be placed first on the agenda.
b. Historic Inventory Update
Vice Chair Kindness reminded the Commissioners that the consultant's final inventory report would be available at the next
meeting. Commissioner Marmion inquired if the consultant would provide a final report before the Commission or the City
Council. Ms. Campbell reminded the Commission that they are required to provide a quarterly report to the City Council.
The Commission agreed this is part of their charter. They agreed that perhaps the consultant should provide a report to the
Commission, and the Commission could then report to the City Council within the next few months.
3. REVIEW OF NEXT MEETING'S PROPOSED AGENDA
Vice Chair Kindness reviewed that the next agenda would include an update on the historic inventory project and interviews
of candidates for the vacant Commission position. In addition, Commissioner LeWarne could provide an update on the grant
application deadline for the tourism brochure. Hopefully, by the next meeting a date will have been set for the City Council
to review the Commission's recommendation regarding the First Baptist Church. A discussion on possible changes to the
Commission by-laws would also be on the next agenda.
4. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CHAIR COMMENTS
Vice Chair Kindness provided no additional comments during this portion of the meeting.
5. HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEMBER COMMENTS
There were no additional Commissioner comments.
6. ADJOURNMENT
The Commission meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
October 14, 2004 Page 7
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
October 14, 2004 Page 8