2018-04-12 Historic Preservation Commission Packeto Agenda
VEdmonds Historic Preservation Commission
,yFOURTNER ROOM
121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL - 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020
APRIL 12, 2018, 5:30 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of Draft Minutes: March 8, 2018
III. AGENDA ADDITIONS / CHANGES
IV. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
V. NEW BUSINESS
1. Reduce the ground -floor height requirement in BD1 to 12 feet, as found in all other BD zones,
while maintaining a 30 foot building height limit. Allowing a 12-foot ground -floor height makes
developing three levels within the 30 foot height restriction possible.
VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Continued discussion on new application for Dr. Palmer House located at 820 Maple Street
VII. ACTION ITEMS
VIII. COMMISSION CHAIR COMMENTS
IX. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
X. ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission Agenda
April 12, 2018
Page 1
2.1
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/12/2018
Approval of Draft Minutes: March 8, 2018
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft minutes
Narrative
Draft minutes are attached
Attachments:
HPC180308d
Packet Pg. 2
2.1.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
SUMMARY MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
March 8, 2018
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Raetzloff called the meeting of the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. in the 3' Floor
Conference Room of City Hall, 121 — 5' Avenue North.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Tim Raetzloff, Chair
Laura Johnson, Vice Chair
Sandra Allbery
David Preston
Emily Scott
Larry Vogel
Steve Waite
Kristiana Johnson, City Council Member (arrived at 5:40 p.m.)
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
Chris Deiner-Karr (excused)
STAFF PRESENT
Diane Cunningham, Administrative Assistant
OTHERS PRESENT
Caitlin Kelly, Director, Edmonds Historical Museum
Chair Raetzloff welcomed Commissioners Preston and Johnson to the Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Waite noted that the minutes indicate he agreed to be the point person to contact the property owner at 645 Fir
Street to assist in filling out the application. However, his understanding was that he was to research the property and bring
back additional information regarding its eligibility for the Register prior to his contacting the property owner.
COMMISSIONER VOGEL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 2018 BE ACCEPTED AS
PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER ALLBERY SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY,
WITH COMMISSIONERS PRESTON AND JOHNSON ABSTAINING.
AGENDA ADDITIONS/CHANGES
The agenda was adjusted to add a discussion on the Gerdon House plaque presentation under Action Items. The remainder of
the agenda was accepted as presented.
Packet Pg. 3
2.1.a
REOUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Caitlin Kelly, Director, Edmonds Historical Museum, introduced herself to the Commission. Commissioner Allbery
announced that she is contemplating stepping down from her position as the museum's liaison to the Commission. Pending
the museum board's approval, she anticipates that Ms. Kelly will be her replacement.
NEW BUSINESS
Election of 2018 Officers
It was noted that the Commission elected Commissioner Raetzloff to serve at its Chair for 2018 at their last meeting. However,
they postponed election of Vice Chair until the two new Commissioners were present.
COMMISSIONER VOGEL MOVED THAT COMMISSIONER JOHNSON BE APPOINTED TO SERVE AS VICE
CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION IN 2018. COMMISSIONER ALLBERY SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Discussion on New ADDlication for Dr. Palmer House Located at 820 MaDle Street
Ms. Cunningham advised that the owners of the Palmer House have submitted an application for their property to once again
be listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Chair Raetzloff reviewed that the property was placed on the Register
in 2010 but was removed in 2016 at the request of the owners after the Commission denied a Certificate of Appropriateness
for the large windows that were proposed for the 2nd story.
Chair Raetzloff referred to the new application, noting that the applicants' contention is that the new windows are not
substantially different than the ones they replaced. Commissioner Scott pointed out that the new windows are larger than the
previous windows, which were fixed and leaded glass. The Commission did not feel that the new windows met the criteria set
forth by the National Register of Historic Places.
The Commission discussed disappointment that the structure may no longer qualify for the Register, even though it is beautiful
and an important part of the City's heritage. Chair Raetzloff recalled that the Commission has previously discussed the idea
of having a secondary category for historic properties that do not qualify for the Register. While the law does not allow the
Commission to do this, perhaps the museum could create a program to recognize older structures that have historic significance
but do not qualify for the Register. Ms. Kelly reported that the Museum Board has discussed the concept and expressed interest
in pursuing it. Commissioner Waite stressed the importance of making sure there is a distinction between the plaques placed
by the Historic Preservation Commission and those placed by the Edmonds Historical Museum.
Council Member Johnson asked if it would be possible to designate the Palmer House property as a historic site rather than a
historic structure. Commissioner Waite agreed that there is criterion for designating historic sites on the Edmonds Register of
Historic Places. However, the plaques that identify sites should probably be different from those that identify properties.
Currently, there is only one plaque design with generic verbiage. The Commission agreed to discuss this idea further, including
opportunities for grant funding to fund the plaque program.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION TABLE ITS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DR.
PALMER HOUSE (820 MAPLE STREET) UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. VICE CHAIR JOHNSON SECONDED
THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The Commissioners were encouraged to visit the site and review the criteria in preparation for their continued discussion.
2019 Historic Calendar
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
March 8, 2018 Page 2
Packet Pg. 4
2.1.a
Commissioner Scott reminded them that the theme for the 2019 calendar is "transportation." She recalled the email she sent
out highlighting her ideas for each page and inviting the Commissioners to volunteer their time to conduct research. Following
a brief discussion of ideas about what could be included in each of the categories, the following assignments were made:
Railroads
Hoof and Water (animals and use of waterways)
Interurban Trolley
Mosquito fleet (ferry)
Roads, freeways and highways
Buses
Motor Vehicles
Bicycles and other self-propelled devices
Monorail
Transportation fails
Chair Raetzloff
Commissioner Allbery
Commissioner Preston
Council Member Johnson
Commissioner Vogel
Commissioner Scott reminded the Commissioners that while they have permission to use photographs from the Edmonds
Historical Museum, they must obtain permission to use photographs that are obtained elsewhere. Citations must be provided
for each photograph that is used in the calendar. In addition to photographs, she asked that the Commissioners provide a short
write-up on each topic, along with references.
ACTION ITEMS
Nomination for Yost House Located at 658 Maple Street for Inclusion on Edmonds Register of Historic Places
Chair Raetzloff referred the Commission to the signed application submitted by the owners of the Yost House located at 658
Maple Street. It was noted that the Commission has discussed the property on previous occasions. They agreed to schedule a
public hearing on the application for April 121. Chair Raetzloff agreed to notify the property owners of the public hearing
date, advising that they must attend. Ms. Cunningham indicated that the hearing would be advertised and the appropriate
notices would be posted.
Nomination for House Located at 645 Fir Street for Inclusion on Edmonds Register of Historic Places
Commissioner Waite referred to the application for the house located at 645 Fir Street and reminded the Commission of the
criteria that must be considered when reviewing applications for the Register. He advised that he and Council Member Teitzel
visited the residence and its surrounding property and found it to be essentially intact. He noted that there is a new foundation,
which he does not believe would disqualify the structure. He also has some questions about the railing. He advised that the
structure appears to meet Criteria 2, 4 and 5:
• Criteria 2 — Embodies the distinctive architectural characteristics of a type, period, style or method of design or
construction, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
• Criteria 4 — Exemplifies or reflect special elements of the City's cultural, special, economic, political, aesthetic,
engineering or architectural history.
• Criteria 5 — Is associated with the lives of persons significant in national, state or local government.
Commissioner Waite referred to Commissioner Allbery's written documentation about the people who occupied the structure,
which supports Criteria 4 and 5. This information alone qualifies the structure for the Register, even if it doesn't have
architectural character.
Commissioner Waite advised that there are three outbuildings on the property. While one may qualify for the Register, there
is insufficient documentation to support its inclusion. It appears that the owners are currently interesting in having the main
structure listed on the Register, and no mention has been made about including the outbuildings. However, upon their request,
the Commission could revisit the outbuildings to determine their eligibility, as well.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
March 8, 2018 Page 3
Packet Pg. 5
2.1.a
Commissioner Johnson agreed to contact the property owners and invite them to sign the application. Chair Waite agreed to
assist as needed. Commissioner Allbery agreed to provide a brief synopsis of the information she has collected pertaining to
Criteria 4 and 5. They agreed to schedule a public hearing for April 12' if the required application, with signature, is submitted
to the City within the next two weeks.
Properties to be Discussed for Inclusion on Edmonds Register of Historic Places
Ms. Cunningham referred the Commissioners to a list of properties (and their owners) that were identified by the consultant as
possible candidates for the Register. She also provided an updated list of properties the City has previously received
applications for that still need to be processed by the Commission.
Council Member Johnson said she would be happy to pursue the property at 9309 Bowdoin Way, which is owned by Shirley
Johnson. She said Ms. Johnson has been in contact with the City about potentially donating the property to the City of Edmonds
at some point. She also agreed to contact Marni Muir, who owns the property at 7700 — 1751 Street SW, which is an old
caretakers cottage from a large estate.
Commissioner Allbery said she contacted the owners of the property at 232 Sunset Avenue N, who indicatcd they were not
interested in pursuing placement on the Register.
Gerdon House Plague Presentation
Ms. Cunningham announced that a plaque presentation ceremony for the Gerdon House is scheduled for March 201h at 10 a.m.
Mayor Earling will be present. Commissioner Vogel indicated that he would cover the event for My Edmonds News.
Commissioner Preston agreed to talk with the property owners regarding the plaque's location, noting that the preference is
somewhere close to the street.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Raetzloff announced that the interpretive plaque on Sunset Avenue is now in place. He suggested that the photograph
that was used on the plaque would be good for the 2019 calendar, as well. Commissioner Vogel said the interpretive sign at
Yost Park has also been installed.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
The Commissioners all welcomed the two new Commissioners and thanked them for being willing to participate.
Commissioner Johnson said she is excited to learn from her fellow Commissioners. It quite an opportunity for her to participate
on the Commissioner. Commissioner Preston concurred.
Council Member Johnson announced that she will be the Council's 2018 liaison to the Commission. She commented that the
Historic Preservation Commission is her favorite committee assignment. She reported that the Commission should never have
to cancel another meeting because of a quorum because the City Council has authorized all board and commission members to
participate in meetings via phone. Secondly, she reported that the Economic Development Commission made a presentation
to the City Council in February, asking that the Downtown Business (BD-1) zone height requirement be changed to allow for
redevelopment and reconstruction. Their idea is that the area is underdeveloped. The goal is to get three stories where only
two stories are currently allowed. She emphasized that the intent of the current height limit is to prohibit development of more
than two -stories and to maintain the historic character of the downtown. She said it would be helpful for the Commission to
provide some background information to the City Council relative to this issue. The Commission decided to add this discussion
to their April agenda.
�IL111J 711u_1_0401"
The meeting was adjourned at 7:06 p.m.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
March 8, 2018 Page 4
Packet Pg. 6
5.1
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/12/2018
Reduce the ground -floor height requirement in BD1 to 12 feet, as found in all other BD zones, while
maintaining a 30 foot building height limit. Allowing a 12-foot ground -floor height makes developing
three levels within the 30 foot height restriction possible.
Staff Lead: Patrick Doherty, Community Services & Economic Dev. Director
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
During 2017 the Development Feasibility Subgroup (consisting of three members) of the Economic
Development Commission (EDC) discussed various issues related to potential barriers to development,
redevelopment and economic vitality in Edmonds. One issue identified that appears to be holding back
redevelopment in the BD1 zone of the City Center (see attached map) is the required 15-foot ground -
floor height for new buildings (see attached schematic). Within the 30-foot height limit, this restricts
new buildings to two floors, while in other Downtown (BD) zones, 3 floors are possible. The Subgroup
presented this issue, its analysis, and its recommendations to the full EDC in December and January,
who approved the attached memo, outlining its recommendations. The memo was presented to the City
Council on 2/6/18. At that meeting City Council directed that the issue be discussed in Committee
before returning to City Council for a decision on whether to take up this issue for further study and
consideration. The issue was presented to the Council's Planning, Parks and Public Works Committee on
3/13/18. The Committee issued no recommendation on the issue, but directed that the issue be
presented to the Historic Preservation Commission for its input before returning to City Council.
Staff Recommendation
Provide any input regarding the issue to the record for City Council consideration in their deliberation of
whether to take up the issue of reconsidering the BD1 15' required ground -floor height.
Narrative
With the realization that only two floors are possible within the 30-foot height limit in the BD1 zone, the
EDC unanimously recommended that alternatives be considered that could allow new buildings to
include three floors within the existing 30-foot height limit. Otherwise, in their opinion,
(re)development has been stalled in the BD1. The EDC believes that new in -fill development in the BD1
zone would provide the following benefits:
New cultural, shopping, and recreation opportunities within the community; as more space
becomes available, new businesses will be able to find locations in Downtown Edmonds and existing
businesses will have the opportunity to expand.
New infusion of revenue into the city or county budget as a result of redevelopment activities (sales
tax, hotel tax, and utility tax revenues) in order to provide greater public safety, parks and
transportation services.
Packet Pg. 7
5.1
More job opportunities (retail, service, office, and/or manufacturing jobs); more businesses result in
job creation.
More housing opportunities in a walkable environment. Three floors allows for upper -level
residential in the Downtown core. More downtown residents will contribute to a more vital and
vibrant core, increase retail activity and the overall desirability of locating a business or office in
Downtown Edmonds.
Additions of one or two additional stories atop existing buildings (up to the 30-foot limit) could
leverage needed restoration of existing buildings and/or building fagades, improving the look and
feel of Downtown. Existing building standards and design guidelines would remain in place, helping
to maintain the character of our community.
Construction jobs will be created by the development of new buildings and new infrastructure and
the remodeling of existing buildings.
For these reasons, together with other information provided in detail in the attached memo, the EDC
has recommended its Preferred Alternative for consideration by City Council, as follows:
Reduce the ground -floor height requirement in BD1 to 12 feet, as found in all other BD zones, while
maintaining a 30 foot building height limit. Allowing a 12-foot ground -floor height makes developing
three levels within the 30 foot height restriction possible.
The attached EDC memo was presented to the City Council on 2/6/18. No substantive discussion or
action was requested at that meeting. The City Council directed staff to schedule further discussion of
whether to take up this issue of the 15-foot required ground -floor height in the BD1 zone at an
upcoming Council Committee.
During this discussion questions were raised about when the last substantive consideration by Council of
this BD1 requirement had occurred, citing the possibility that the issue had been addressed as recently
as 2013-2014 during consideration of the latest BD1 zone amendments. Staff have reviewed the record
and found the following chronology of ECC amendments regarding the BD zones, as well as a more
detailed break -down of Planning Board and City Council discussions regarding the BD1 zone in 2013 and
2014:
BD -Related Ordinances:
Ord 3624, Jan 26, 2007 - established BD zones, with 25' basic height limits (allowing for additional 5' in
height' after a 15' step -back) in the BD2, BD3, and BD4 zones. An as -of -right 30' height limit was
established for BD1 zone. 12' ground floor was required in BD2-BD5 zones. 15' ground floor required in
BD1.
Ord 3691, July 22, 2008 - Interim zoning - regarding depth of ground -floor uses.
Ord 3700, November 3, 2008 - repeal/replace Ord 3691 and reestablish Chapter 16.43 for purposes of
establishing 30' required depth of ground floor uses on designated street fronts.
Packet Pg. 8
5.1
Ord 3736, June 2, 2009 - Amendments clarifying that for designated historic landmark buildings,
development standards within Chapter 16.43 may be modified or waived in conjunction with a
certificate of appropriateness.
Ord 3865, December 20, 2011 - Increased the required depth of ground level commercial uses on
designated street fronts from 30' to 45'.
Ord 3918, April 23, 2013 - Removed requirement of required step -back at 25' to achieve 30' height limit
in BD1-BD4 zones and instituted design guideline compliance in all BD zones.
Ord 3955, Jan 21, 2014 - Limited ground -floor uses in BD1, prohibiting many office uses, storage uses,
auto sales and service, dry cleaning plants, printing plants, residential uses, schools, off-street parking,
wholesale uses, auction houses, drive-in/through businesses, labs, and light industrial from the required
ground -floor use area (45' deep).
NOTE: No substantive consideration or action regarding the 15' required ground -floor height in BD1
zones took place since 2007.
Attachments:
Att. 1: BD1 Ground Floor Height Measurement
Att. 2: BD Zone District Map
Att. 3: EDC Ground Floor Height Memo
Packet Pg. 9
5.1.a
BD1 Ground Floor Height Measurement
30'
maximum
height
r
r
Q
c
w
E
c�
a
Packet Pg. 10
5.1.b
BD ZONE DISTRICTS
a
Packet Pg. 11
5.1.c
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR EARLING AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JAMIE REECE, CHAIR, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 15-FOOT MINIMUM GROUND -FLOOR
HEIGHT IN EDMONDS 13131 ZONE
DATE: January 17, 2018
OBJECTIVE:
Increase City revenues, jobs, housing options and new cultural, shopping and recreation opportunities in
Edmonds
APPROACH:
Stimulate economic growth in the downtown core by revising zoning standards in BD1 to encourage
new construction and redevelopment of vacant sites and/or deteriorating structures.
BACKGROUND:
In January 2007, the Edmonds City Council passed Ordinance No. 3624, enacting a new chapter 16.43
relating to downtown business zoning. The Downtown Business zone (BD) was subdivided into 5
subdistricts, each with its own unique mix of permitted uses and zoning regulations. The intent was to
promote Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses, define strong
pedestrian links, and create a strong retail core at the downtown's focal center.
The code allows building heights of 30 feet in all BD zones except zone BD5, where it is 25 feet.
Site development standards also call for a minimum ground -floor height of 12 feet in all BD zones,
except BD1 where the minimum ground -floor height requirement is 15 feet.
BD1 was singled out for the 15-foot height requirement because, at the time, it was thought a higher
ground floor height (15 feet) would encourage a broader range of retail development, resulting in
attractive development/redevelopment and a strong retail core.
(add foot note: "Minimum height of ground floor within the designated
street -front" means the vertical distance from top to top of the
successive finished floor surfaces for that portion of the ground floor
Packet Pg. 12
5.1.c
located within the designated street front (see ECDC 16.43.030(B)); and,
if the ground floor is the only floor above street grade, from the top of
the floor finish to the top of the ceiling joists or, where there is not a
ceiling, to the top of the roof rafters.).
DISCUSSION:
The current zoning standards in zones BD1 through BD4 allow for structures 30 feet in height. In all BD
zones except BD1, the minimum ground -floor height requirement is 12 feet. With a maximum building
height of 30 feet, three levels of usable space may be achieved. However, in BD1, with the ground -floor
minimum height requirement of 15 feet, only two floors of usable space may be achieved within the 30-
foot height limit. In today's market, most financially viable redevelopment requires a minimum of three
levels of rentable space to "pencil out." In BD1, with the ground floor height requirement of 15 feet,
development/redevelopment has been stagnating, as contrasted with some new development/
redevelopment in other BD zones. As a result, there is a missed opportunity for commercial growth and
increased housing.
There is a demand and need for additional commercial space in the Downton Core. The City receives
numerous inquiries from prospective retailers, gallery operators, lodging establishments, restaurateurs,
and office -based employers, seeking Downtown tenant space. There is very little available as most
existing buildings are small and mostly fully occupied.
Discussions with property owners and potential developers indicate the few vacant or substantially
under -developed sites in the BD1 are stymied from being (re)developed by the de facto two-story limit.
While higher ground -level heights may be desirable for some uses, they are no longer considered
necessary. Building owners and tenants are anxious for rentable, quality space in the Edmonds retail
core. Edmonds has the opportunity to facilitate creating such space by reducing the minimum ground -
floor height requirement in BD1 to 12 feet as found in other BD zones.
Staff reviewed ground -floor height requirements for our competitive cities. For most, there is no
minimum height other than that required by the International Building Code, (a 7 foot 6 inch minimum)
Kirkland requires a 13 to 15-foot first floor, depending on the overall height of the building, which in
commercial zones ranges from 30 feet to 55 feet. Shoreline and Downtown Tacoma require a 12-foot
first floor. Seattle specifies 13 feet in the Neighborhood Commercial zones and 15 feet downtown,
where buildings are significantly higher then 30 feet.
The EDC considered several different approaches to address the issue of creating an environment to
attract development and redevelopment; i.e. allowing for three-story structures in BD1. Three
Alternatives were discussed:
Alternative 1: Preferred Alternative. Reduce the ground -floor height requirement in BD1 to 12 feet, as
found in all other BD zones, while maintaining a 30 foot building height limit. Allowing a
12-foot ground -floor height makes developing three levels within the 30 foot height
restriction possible.
Alternative 2: Maintain the 15 first floor requirement and allow building heights in BD1 in excess of 30
feet, possibly up to 35 feet. This option includes a potential stipulation that a view study
Packet Pg. 13
5.1.c
be conducted to ensure any such additional height above 30 feet would not significantly
impact views. This was viewed as a good compromise, but adding additional height was
not considered a first choice by the Committee.
Alternative 3: Combine Options 1 and 2; decrease the first -floor height requirement but allow overall
building height, for three story structures, to increase. A 13-foot first floor requirement
for example, could result in a 31-foot building, for example.
RECOMMENDATION:
The EDC recommends Alternative 1 to City Council for consideration: reduce the ground -floor height
minimum in BD1 to 12 feet as required in other BD zones.
The reduction in the ground -floor height requirement may improve the economic vitality of the City of
Edmonds Downtown core by encouraging (re(development of downtown vacant sites and deteriorating
or substantially under -developed structures and attracting new uses the core. There are many positive
outcomes that may result from this proposed adjustment:
• New cultural, shopping, and recreation opportunities within the community; as more space
becomes available, new businesses will be able to find locations in Downtown Edmonds and
existing businesses will have the opportunity to expand.
• New infusion of revenue into the city or county budget as a result of redevelopment activities
(sales tax, hotel tax, and utility tax revenues) in order to provide greater public safety, parks and
transportation services.
• More job opportunities (retail, service, office, and/or manufacturing jobs); more businesses
result in job creation.
• More housing opportunities in a walkable environment. Three floors allows for upper -level
residential in the Downtown core. More downtown residents will contribute to a more vital and
vibrant core, increase retail activity and the overall desirability of locating a business or office in
Downtown Edmonds.
• Additions of one or two additional stories atop existing buildings (up to the 30-foot limit) could
leverage needed restoration of existing buildings and/or building facades, improving the look
and feel of Downtown. Existing building standards and design guidelines would remain in place,
helping to maintain the character of our community.
• Construction jobs will be created by the development of new buildings and new infrastructure
and the remodeling of existing buildings.
The EDC discussed potential negative impacts of the proposed change and concluded they would be
minimal.
• Views would not be impacted as building heights will not be altered.
• Increased density in terms of visitors to downtown and new residents would add vitality, but
could also impact parking availability.
Packet Pg. 14
5.1.c
• Changes in the character of the streetscape may be considered both a positive and a negative.
Deteriorating buildings are an eyesore and can be dangerous. New construction will not
necessarily be as quaint, but will keep the overall character of the Downtown. Current design
standards, first adopted in 2008, ensure the desired "look and feel" of the Downtown Core will
be maintained.
Overall, in the opinion of the EDC, the positives outweigh the potential negatives. We encourage
Council to amend the code in BD1 to reduce the minimum required ground -floor height to 12 feet.
Packet Pg. 15
6.1
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/12/2018
Continued discussion on new application for Dr. Palmer House located at 820 Maple Street
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
Application is attached
Staff Recommendation
Review and discuss
Narrative
<Type or insert text here>
Attachments:
Palmer House 3.2018
Packet Pg. 16
W40
6.1.a
Edmonds
tea■ Register of
Mabudv Historic Places
F2WMWwrrrx
OMMOW+m Nomination Form
Type or print all entries - Please complete all applicable sections.
A. Site Name/ •
Historic Name (if applicable): HD t4 S
Common (or Current) Name (if applicable):
Site Address / Location
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Received:
Received by:
File #:
Survey/Site #:
Street Address or Location Description:
City / ZIP Code: am1)�!�❑ Tax /Parcel Number:
PropertyB.
Owner
Name:
Street Address: zy D pr /' f
City / State / ZIP Code: VAO-� l lj'�C' I L9 ` V Phone #:r C.
Nomination. -• ByL
Name (say "Owner" if same as owner listed above): 0 NA)15 -
Contact Address: Street: t.F r-- , City / ZIP: PA J�',f Q
ContactPhone#: 96 •- ��% Date Form Completed: 1-1,f
•SGRAW •- -• ••umm 1XIMMLO uirea tor a nomination)
I / WE the undersigned certify that we are the owners of the property identified on this form and hereby give our
consent to having the property listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places.
Name (Please P •'n IQ
Signature Date
Name (Please Print) Al 1ft QAJ
Signature Date
d
O
x
L
m
E
M
IL
L
L
.°
c
M
Q
a
3
d
C
c
0
.y
N
7
m
c
0
U_
00
0
N
M
GN
N
7
O
x
d
E
M
IL
c
m
E
a
Revised on 9114110 P40 - Historic Register Nomination Form Page I of 5
Packet Pg. 17
6.1.a
E. Eligibility for Listing on the Edmonds Register
Site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (if checked, skip to Section F)
Site is listed on the State Register of Historic Places (If checked, skip to Section F)
Historical Significance — Please check all that apply:
1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of national, state or local =
istory. `m
2. Embodies the distinctive architectural characteristics of a type, period, style or method of design or construction, or cc
represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. a
3. is an outstanding work of a designer, builder or architect who has made a substantial contribution to the art.
4. _Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city's cultural, special, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or
,architectural history.
5. Y/ [s associated with the lives of persons significant in national, state or local history.
6. Has yielded or may be likely to yield important archaeological information related to history or prehistory.
7. Is a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value,
or which is the only surviving structure significantly associated with a historic person or event.
8. Is a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance and is the only surviving structure or site
associated with that person.
9. Is a cemetery which derives its primary significance from age, from distinctive design features, or from association
with historic events or cultural patterns.
10. _ Is a reconstructed building that has been executed in a historically accurate manner on the original site.
11. _ Is a creative and unique example of folk architecture and design created by persons not formally trained in the
architectural or design professions, and which does not fit into formal architectural or historical categories; the
designation shall include description of the boundaries.
Historical Description
In the space below, describe the history and significance of the site to Edmonds' heritage. You may elect to
describe the site's significance in your own words, attach copies of other documents or photographs, and/or make
reference to other materials (noting where those materials are available to be reviewed). For example, you may
simply note that the site is on an historical survey, noting the survey name and site number. (Please feel free to
attach any additional continuation sheets if you need more space.)
Revised on 9114110 P40 - Historic Register Nomination Form Page 2 of 5
Packet Pg. 18
6.1.a
Historical Description
Dr. William Palmer was the city of Edmonds first dentist. He built his house on
Maple St, which was nothing more than a dirt track, in order to capture majestic
views from every window. The house was completed in 1895 and was added to
the Snohomish County rolls for tax purposes in 1915. Dr. Palmer was very
active in the community and was an accomplished musician often invited to
provide entertainment.
According to the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission's November 2010
newsletter, The Preservationist, Dr. Palmer lived in the house until 1914, at
which time the house was rented for a short time to Matt Engels. Interestingly,
Engels was the first of two mayors to live in the Palmer House — and the first of
two fire chiefs — as he was elected mayor in 1922 and served for two years,
then in 1929 became Edmonds Fire Chief.
Jack and Betty Cooper purchased the property in late 1965. Jack Cooper served
as Edmonds' Fire Chief from 1965-1979. Jack's son, Mike Cooper, was an
Edmonds and Shoreline firefighter and was appointed mayor by the Edmonds
City Council in 2010.
The house was purchased from the Coopers in 2015 by David and Margaret
Peterson.
Packet Pg. 19
6.1.a
c
O
as
c
r
c
O
c)
Co
0
N
M
N
N
3
O
x
L
d
E
m
CL
E
L
:i
Q
Packet Pg. 20
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 21
6.1.a
d
N
7
O
2
L
Cd
E
a
L
0
O
m
Q
Q
3
m
c
c
0
a
0
.y
N
7
V
N
O
r
7
C
C
0
U
Co
0
N
M
N
N
7
O
2
L
d
E
m
IL
a
m
E
m
0
0
a
Packet Pg. 22
6.1.a
.F. Physical Description
This section must be completed if the site is not on the State or National Register, or it is not on an approved historic survey.
Please provide as much information as you can.
Year Built: 1 Architect:
Builder or Engineer (specify):
Architectural Style(s)*:
Form*:
4
Roof Type*:
* Note: See later reference sheets for list of choices for these items.
------ ----------- - - - - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall
Changes from
Condition:
Original:
Excellent
Plan
In
Cladfug:
I
Windows: Other: Site:
Intact Intact Original Site
V tact
t wX
Fair
Slight
Slight
ZSlight
Slight
Moved
Deteriorated
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Date Moved:
Ruins
Extensive
Extensive
Extensive
Extensive
Unexposed
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
----------------------------------------------
x kcU �-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plan Type:
Structural System:
Foundation,
Roof Material:
___Apsidal
_Pavilion
Balloon/Platfonn
,Brick
Asphalt Comp
Metal — Tile
Center Space/
Polygonal
Braced Frame
Concrete block
A. Comp - built up
None
Courtyard
Rectangle
Brick
Zconcrete poured
A. Comp - shingle
Other
Cross/Cruciform
Round
Clay Tile
Log
A. Comp —rolled
_Slate
E-Shape
Semi -circular
Concrete block
None
_Tile
Unknown
Hexagonal
Square
Concrete poured
_Other
Tile - clay
Wood
H-Shape
Triangular
Log
Parged
Tile - concrete
_Wood plank
Irregular
_T-Shape
Mixed
Post & Pier
Metal
_Wood shake
L-Shape
,Unknown
None
_Stone
Metal - corrugated
_Wood shingle
_None
U-Shape
Other
Unknown
Metal - standing seam
Octagonal
Y-Shape
_Plank
Other
Post & Beam
Steel
- cut
_Number of Stories
_Stone
_Stone - uncut
Unknown
Revised on 9114110
P40 - Historic Register Nomination Form
Page 3 of 5
Packet Pg. 23
6.1.a
----------------------- --------------- - - -
Describe the present and original (if known) physical appearance:
(Use continuation sheets if necessary, and far any photographs or copies you are providing.)
G. Bibliographical or Historical References
(Please list and reference any sources which help document the historical value of the site)
9 V--F- A-Gt"
or Office Use.
Location Detail
Parcel #
UTM Reference: Zone Easting Northing
Township Range Section '/4 Section '/a'/4 Section
Category
Ownership
District
, Public
Building(s)
Private
Structure
Both
Site
Object
Within a District?
Yes
No
Resource Status Usage
Survey/Inventory Current:
National Register
National Landmark
State Register Historic:
Determined Eligible
Other:
Contributing? Local District:
Yes National or State Register / District:
No
Unknown
Revised on 9114110
P40 - Historic Register Nomination Form
Page 4 of'5
Packet Pg. 24
6.1.a
F. Physical Description
Situated prominently on the Maple Street hillside, the broadly flared eaves of
this Queen Anne/Bungalow/eclectic house is the tallest and oldest of all her
neighbors. It is easy to imagine the days when the Dr. Palmer House stood
alone on this site with a sweeping view of the Olympic Mountains and all of
Puget Sound. Beginning at the street level, nine concrete steps lead up to a
wide set of wood stairs that climb to the full -width front porch on the primary
north facade. The porch is sheltered by the wide bell of the main side -gabled
roof, with is supported by three classical columns. The front door is located at
the east end of this facade, while a three -sided bay projects at the west end. At
the second story, a large pedimented gabled dormer contains a bay window.
All gable ends of the house are wood shingled and decorated with exposed
shaped rafter tails. Modern updates include:
- restored original shake shingles in each gable
- energy efficient windows in all four gables
- removed asbestos cladding to expose original cedar siding
- restored original cedar shingles and siding
- rebuilt front entry steps to the original full -width architectural intent
Packet Pg. 25
n
f
�11u�u44itiR .
Aoc
16,
Jti
. .r � .�y � are � � + � � .� „• i , � ,�.
6.1.a
G. Bibtiographicat or Historical Reference
A Historic Survey of Downtown
Edmonds, Washington
for
The City of Edmonds & the
Washington State office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
0
x
The document lists the Dr. Palmer House as Number 42 in its Historic Property
Inventory
a
Packet Pg. 27
( I$�106-191pHItA-L C),Z- Htsfvn fCAL (2r—
Palmer MD, W.C.
The Tribune -Review
June 25, 1915
The sad intelligence was brought to Edmonds last Monday by the receipt of a
letter from Mrs. Olive Palmer by Mrs. JG.W. Klossen telling of the death of
Dr.W.C. Palmer, the end coming June 17`h , at 7:15 in a sanitarium in the city
of Baltimore.
Dr. Palmer was for many years a resident of Edmonds and only left last year
for California with hopes of recovering his health, but after spending some
time there and continually growing worse it was decided to take him to his =
old home in Baltimore, Maryland.
E
While here and while his health would permit, he took an active part in every a
thing that went to make up the life of the town, being a good musician his o
services were sought for by entertainment committees of various kinds and ,0
as a professional man he had built up a practice in dentistry that was envied o
by his brother dentists.
Dr. Palmer was an active member of the lical lodge K. of P., up to the time
his health failed, and to the time of his death was a member in good standing.
He leaves a wife and two daughters, who have the sympathy of a host of
friends in Edmonds.
Packet Pg. 28