HomeMy WebLinkAboutPK14-310 - Original - Landmarks Commission - Mill Creek Canyon Earthworks - 10/27/14 Wl
H , h{. •k
r , , ern +�
KENT"
WA9HINGTGN Y{ {.`..f Document
CONTRACT COVER SHEET
This is to be completed by the Contract Manager prior to submission
to City Clerks Office. All portions are to be completed.
If you have questions, please contact City Clerk's Office.
I
I
Vendor Name: Landmarks Commission j
Vendor Number.
ID Edwards Number
i
Contract Number:
This is assigned by City Clerk's Office 2v } `r�
Project Name: Mill Creek Canyon Earthworks
Description. ❑ Interlocal Agreement ❑ Change Order ❑ Amendment x Contract
❑ Other:
Contract Effective Date: 10/27/14 Termination Date:
Contract Renewal Notice
Number of days required notice for termination or renewal or amendment
Contract Manager: Ronda Billerbeck/(i. Department: Parks, Cultural Programs
Contract Amount:
Approval Authority: x Department Director ❑Mayor ❑City Council
i
Detail: (i.e. address, location, parcel number, tax id, etc.):
Remove dead and diseased poplar trees - Earthworks Park 742 E. Titus Kent, WA
Kent Municipal Code, Chapter 14.12
adccW10877 8 14
i
KEIT
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS #14.18
TYPE II
Property
Mill Creek Canyon Earthworks
742 E. Titus
Kent, WA
Date Issued
October 27,2014
Scope of Work
Remove poplar trees
The following work was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on October 9,
2014,pursuant to the attached application and supporting documentation, and
approved by the Kent Landmarks Commission on October 23, 2014:
• Remove twelve poplar trees along Smith Street and Reiten Road.
• Amend COA No. 1013 to eliminate the conditions requiring a tree replacement plan
and the planting of nezv trees.
The following condition shall apply:
• Applicant shall submit photographic documentation of the work upon
completion of the project.
This Certificate is hereby issued pursuant to Kent Municipal Code, Chapter 14.12, but
does not waive the applicants responsibilities with respect to other permit
requirements and obligations.
I
Thomas K. Hitzroth,Chair
Kent Landmarks Commission
b �I
Y
Julie M. Koler
Historic Preservation Officer
li
e
Certificate of Appropriateness#14.13
October 27, 2014
Page 2 of 2
Note to Applicant: Work must occur exactly according to approved plans and
specifications. Any revisions, omissions and/or additions to plans
and specifications must be reviewed and approved by the Kent
Landmarks Commission.
Appeal Procedure: Any interested person may appeal the above decision to the Kent
Hearing Examiner. Written notice of the appeal must be filed
within 14 calendar days of the issuance of the Certificate of
Appropriateness.
cc: Ronda Billerbeck,Applicant
Garin Lee,Superintendent, Parks Operations, City of Kent
COA Log File
Attachments:
COA application, October 1,2014
DRC Report,October 21, 2014
i
�I
I
I
i
I�
i
•
KENT
wnnnxolox
• • •
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS #10.13, AMENDED
TYPE III
i
Property
Mill Creek Canyon Earthworks
742 E Titus
Kent,WA
Date Issued
October 27,2014
Scope of Work
Remove existing dead and diseased poplar trees
The following work was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on June 10, 2010,
pursuant to the attached application and supporting documentation,and approved by
the Kent Landmarks Commission on June 24,2010,and subsequently amended by
COA#14.18 on October 23,2014,in order to remove original conditions:
• Remove existing dead and diseased poplar trees at nortltzvest edge of Earthworks Park,
along E Snrith Street.
• This action is required to alleviate a threat to public health and safety from falling trees
and tree limbs.
The following condition shall apply:
• Applicant shall submit photographic documentation of the work upon
completion of the project.
I
This Certificate is hereby issued pursuant to Kent Municipal Code Chapter 14.12,but
does not waive the applicants responsibilities with respect to other permit
requirements and obligations.
Thomas K. Hitzroth,Chair
King County Landmarks Commission
by
�
Julie M. Koler
Historic Preservation Officer
I
I
Certificate ofAppropriateness#10,13,amended
October 27, 2014
Page 2 of 2
Note to Applicant: Work must occur exactly according to approved plans and
specifications. Any revisions, omissions and/or additions to plans
and specifications must be reviewed and approved by the King
County Landmarks Commission.
Appeal Procedure: Any interested person may appeal the above decision to the Kent
Hearing Examiner. Written notice of the appeal may be filed
within fourteen(14) calendar days of the issuance of the Certificate
of Appropriateness.
cc: Brian Levenhagen,Applicant
Ronda Billerbeck,Cultural Programs Manager,City of Kent
Garin Lee,Superintendent,Parks Operations, City of Kent
COA Log File
Attachment: COA application,June 4, 2010
I
I
i
i
I
I
i
DRC REPORT TO LANDMARKS COMMISSION
October 21, 2014
APPLICATION FOR TYPE If CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS (#1415): '
Mary Olson Farm
28728 Green River Road;Auburn
Patricia Cosgrove, Applicant
i
Project proposal:
To install gutters and downspouts on the barn,
weaving house and downspout.
Mary Olson Farm has been undergoing restoration as a history park and environmental
learning center for several years. Now that the farmhouse, weaving house and barn have
been fully restored, they would like to install gutters to minimize water damage and wear to
the buildings. There is no evidence that the weaving house or barn had gutters, but there
is already accumulating damage
to the lower portions of the walls �a
due to runoff. The farmhouse did
r r'
have gutters at one point, based
on downspouts visible in historic " I }
photographs.
The proposed gutters include a
5" K-style, pre-finished whiteq
aluminum gutter for the
farmhouse; this style was chosen , -
because it is more compatible
with the higher style decorative AAR low
features of the house than either
a wood or half-round galvanized 1 armhouse prior to restoration
gutter. It will be painted white to
match the trim and to be as inconspicuous as possible. For the weaving house, a small
scale half-round galvanized gutter was preferred, but the only available sizes are intended
for larger roof planes and it would be too large for the small details of this building. The
proposed gutter is a less detailed and smaller scaled version of the K-style. It will be pre-
finished in a dark brown color to blend in with the weathered wood of the building. For the
barn, the most utilitarian and period appropriate gutter is a 6" half-round galvanized gutter.
This is what is proposed. More detailed information is available in the COA application
and attachments.
Property background.
• Vernacular style farmhouse and outbuildings;
• construction date varies, primarily 1897-1902;
• designated an Auburn Landmark in 2000;
• received multiple COAs.
i
DRC REPORT TO LANDMARKS COMMISSION
October 21, 2014
Page 2
Applicable features of significance:
• All exterior portions of contributing buildings;
• interior of the barn;
• fences, historic orchard trees, wagon road remnants; and
• all land area within the boundaries.
COA evaluated on the basis of the following:
King County Code 20.62.080 (as referenced by Auburn City Code 15.76.030E)
Section A. At any time after a designation report and notice has been filed with the
director, a certificate of appropriateness must be obtained from the commission before any
alterations may be made to the significant features of the landmark identified in the
designation report.
Section C.2. Type II COA, for alterations in appearance, replacement of historic materials
and new construction.
These code sections are applicable, as the proposed new construction is located
within the designated boundaries of the historic district. A type II COA is being
considered for new and replacement gutters.
Rules and Regulations of the Auburn Landmarks Commission
Part Vl. Section 6. The Type II Certificate of Appropriateness shall be granted in
accordance with the following criteria:
A. The extent to which the proposed alteration or significant change would
adversely affect the specific features or characteristics specified in the latest of
the preliminary determination of significance, if any, or the designation report;
B. The reasonableness or lack thereof of the proposed alteration of significant
changes in light of other alternatives available to achieve the objectives of the
owner and the applicant.
C. The extent to which the proposed alteration or significant change may be
necessary to meet the requirements of any other law, stature, ordinance,
regulation, code or ordinance; and
This section of Rules and Regulations is applicable, as the project requires a
Type II COA. The Rules and Procedures do not reference the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation as criteria for evaluating COAs. However, the
Commission would use the following Standards for other similar projects:
Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced.
Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the
new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible,
materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary
and physical evidence.
I
DRC REPORT TO LANDMARKS COMMISSION
October 21, 2014
Page 3
This standard is met. The weaving house and barn never had gutters, according
to all existing documentation and physical evidence, but the farmhouse did.
However, no gutters remain, and the only evidence of the gutter type or style are
historic photos of the downspouts. Consequently, the downspouts will match the
old in design, color, texture, and using aluminum rather than the likely original j
material, steel. New gutters on the farmhouse will match the downspouts in
material, color and texture, with a minimal design that is compatible with the
architectural character of the roof edges.
Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not
destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the
property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible
with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to
protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
This standard is met. The new gutters and downspouts for all buildings require no
destruction of materials or features. The spatial relationships of this farm property
are characterized by the siting of individual buildings, roadways, and landscaping
and are not impacted by the addition of simple gutters on the buildings. The gutters
are clearly new, as evidenced by their method of production and the materials used.
They are sized to fit appropriately with the edge of each roof and downspouts will be
placed adjacent to existing corner boards so as to be relatively inconspicuous.
Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be
undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and
integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
This standard is met. Gutters and downspouts on all buildings could be easily
removed in the future, leaving only small screw and/or nail holes that would not be
readily visible or would easily be filled with wood epoxy and painted over.
Outstanding issues: None.
I
Recommendation:
The DRC recommends approval of the request.
Recommended Motion: I move to ratify the agreement between the commission and
applicant and to approve the Type l/ COA to install gutters on the farmhouse, weaving
house, and barn at Mary Olson Farm as recommended by the DRC at today's meeting.
I
i
DRC REPORT TO LANDMARKS COMMISSION
October 21,2014
Page 4
i
APPLICATION FOR TYPE II CERTIFICATE
OF APPROPRIATENESS (#1418):
Mill Creek Canyon Earthworks
742 E Titus, Kent
Ronda Billerbeck, Applicant
Project proposal:
To permanently remove twelve non-original
poplar trees.
Mill Creek Canyon Earthworks was designed by Herbert Bayer and constructed in 1982.
Primary features of the landmark include several earth mounds, rings, and a dam as well
as concrete walls and wooden bridges. At the time of its construction, most of the
vegetation consisted of grass on the earthworks and alder and maple trees along the north
and south edge of the park east of the dam. In 1985, the Kent Parks Director planted a
row of poplar trees west of the dam, along the north and south edges of the park. These
poplars were placed immediately adjacent to the roadway along Smith Street and Reiten
Road and were intended to serve as a barrier for cars going into the park. Since that time,
several of the trees have died, and more are in poor condition. In 2010, the Commission
issued a COA to remove several of the trees along Smith Street, with a condition that the
city submit a plan for tree replacement and replace the trees (not necessarily with the
same species). The city plans to upgrade the sidewalks along the north side of the park
(adjacent to Smith Street), but they don't yet have a timeline for designing the sidewalk.
The design review committee determined the trees are not features of significance, as part
of"all landscape features" identified in the landmark designation report. The trees are not
specifically mentioned in the report, but they are mentioned in the nomination as
contributing to the character of the park. However, this nomination was prepared before
anyone knew when the poplars were added and why. They do frame the west end of the
park, but were not part of Bayer's original design; they
were simply added by the parks director a few years later '
because of his fondness for them and in part as barriers l
for cars driving onto the park lawn. They don't serve a11�'
functional purpose as part of the earthwork, by holding t
the soil in place behind the dam like the alders and i
maples. The parks department would prefer to remove \
the trees and not replace them, so that the park is visible ` y
from the adjacent streets. The city would also like to
amend COA 1013 to remove the conditions requiring a
tree replacement plan and new trees, as part of this COA
application.
The trees must be removed, as several of them pose a
real hazard to pedestrians and vehicles. This is clearly
evident as many of the trees are dead, and large limbs
have already begun to fall.
i
I
DRC REPORT TO LANDMARKS COMMISSION
October 21, 2014
Page 5
I
Property background:
• Modern environmental artwork and public works facility
• constructed 1982
• designated a Kent Landmark in 2008
• previous COAs for signage, tree and stair removal
Applicable features of significance:
• All landscape features, structures and buildings, excluding trashcans, benches,
drinking fountains, and pipe and rock drainage structure east of parking lot,
• All land area within the nominated boundaries (inside edge of street sidewalks).
COA evaluated on the basis of the following:
King County Code 20.62.080 (as referenced in Kent Municipal Code 14.12.060)
Section A. At any time after a designation report and notice has been filed with the
director, a certificate of appropriateness must be obtained from the commission before any
alterations may be made to the significant features of the landmark identified in the
designation report.
Section C.3. Type 11 COA, for alterations in appearance, replacement of historic materials
and new construction.
These code sections are applicable, as removal of the trees changes the
appearance of the park. A type II COA is being considered for permanent removal
of all remaining poplar trees along Smith Street and Reiten Road.
Rules and Procedures of the City of Kent Landmarks Commission
Part V1. Section D.2. The Type II Certificate of Appropriateness shall be granted in
accordance with the following criteria:
1. The extent to which the proposed alteration or significant change would adversely
affect the specific features or characteristics specified in the latest of the
preliminary determination of significance, if any, or the designation report;
2. The reasonableness or lack thereof of the proposed alteration of significant
changes in light of other alternatives available to achieve the objectives of the
owner and the applicant;
3. The extent to which the proposed alteration or significant change may be
necessary to meet the requirements of any other law, stature, ordinance,
regulation, code or ordinance.
I
This section of Rules and Procedures is applicable, as the project requires a
Type ll COA. The Rules and Procedures do not reference the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation as criteria for evaluating COAs. However, the
Commission would use the following Standards for other similar projects:
DRC REPORT TO LANDMARKS COMMISSION
October 21,2014
Page 6
Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved.
The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial
relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.
i
This standard is mef, The park is significant as a masterwork of the designer
Herbert Bayer. The poplar trees were not part of the original design of the park.
Although they are mentioned in the landmark nomination as contributing to the
character of the park, further research has determined they were simply a later
addition and not distinctive to the parks original design intent or its construction.
They do create a "frame" for the western end of the park, and while that frame has a
certain spatial relationship with the neighborhood to the west and the streets to the
north and south, it is not a distinctive relationship that was intended by the designer.
Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their
own right will be retained and preserved.
This standard is mef. The park is a master work of the designer Herbert Bayer.
The poplar trees were not part of the original design, but were added just a few
years later by the city parks director, who was fond of poplar trees. The park has
not yet reached an age sufficient for it to be considered "historic." Consequently,
the trees have not acquired historic significance.
Outstanding issues: None.
Recommendation:
The DRC recommends approval of the request.
Recommended Motion: /move to ratify the agreement between the commission and
applicant and to approve the Type 11 COA to remove numerous poplar trees at Mill Creek
Canyon Earthworks, and to amend COA 1013 removing certain conditions requiring tree
replacement and development of a plan, as recommended by the DRC at today's meeting.
i
I
Looking sautheast toward Reiten Road
i
I
i
ft �
Ab
Y 4 l.y. •.���1
9e a .S
S h 4 +Y r
t ! y $ rm1+• j
r I
3 e
'. d� a3 'a I o.p� v h$��r'wt,}`k-+`r~.'� " .F`• "
t
e.
to as +*
LIQ
King Count COA#
Certificate of Appropriateness Application
SUBMITTAL DATE: DATE RECEIVED:
•..................................................................e....�
Property Name: Mill Creek Canyon Earthworks Park
Address: 742 E. Titus
City: Kent
Applicant: Brian Levenhagen
Address: 220 4th ave S.
City: Kent State: WA Zip: 98032
Phone: 253-856-5116
Email: bjlevenhagen@ci.kent.wa.us
..................................................0...................an,
Owner: City of Kent Parks Department
Address: 220 4th Ave S
City: Kent State: WA Zip: 98032
Phone: 253-856-5116
Email: bjlevenhagen@ci.kent.wa.us
...............................................a................Now......
Is the project likely to receive Federal or State financial assistance?
If so,please indicate the source: No
I
.......................................................0................'
Does the project require a building permit? No
....................................................a...................1
Project Summary: Please describe the project in detail on a separate sheet. Refer to the COA
instructions sheet for additional submittal requirements.
.......................................................a.........Now.....
I,
i
Certificate of Appropriateness Application
PROJECT SUMMARY: The City of Kent Parks Department is removing the middle
staircase and poplar trees along Smith St. at Earthworks Park for
safety reasons. The poplars will be replaced with a tree that is
less likely to pose a threat to the safety of motorists on Smith St.
The location of the trees will also have to be moved away from
the street to accommodate a future sidewalk connection as shown
in the pictures. There are no plans to replace the middle staircase
in the immediate future for budget reasons.
i
i
i
I
i
i
I
I
N L King County
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS #10.13 j
TYPE III j
Property
Mill Creels Canyon Earthworks
742 E Titus
Kent,WA
Date Issued
June 28,2010
Scope of Worlc
Remove existing dead and diseased poplar trees.
The following work was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on June 10,2010,
pursuant to the attached application and supporting documentation, and approved by
the King County Landmarks Commission on June 24,2010:
• Reniove existing dead and diseased poplar trees at northwest edge of Eartluvortcs Parlc,
along E Smith Street.
• This action is required to alleviate a threat to public health and safety front falling trees
and tree limbs,
The following conditions shall apply:
• Applicant shall submit a plan for tree replacement no later than June 24, 2012,
• Applicant shall replace the trees (not necessarily using the same species) no later
than June 24, 2013,
• Applicant shall submit to the Historic Preservation Officer photographic (digital
okay) documentation of the work upon completion of the project.
This Certificate is hereby issued pursuant to Kent City Code Chapter 14.12,but does
not waive the applicant's responsibilities with respect to other permit requirements
and obligations.
I
Lauren McCroskey,Chair
King County Landmarks Commission
by
ulie M, Koler
Historic Preservation Officer
Billerbeck, Ronda
To: Lee, Garin; Levenhagen, Brian
Cc: Hogan, Lori
Subject: Earthworks/Poplar Trees
Garin and Brian,
I spoke with Todd Scott this morning and was able to get copies of the original "Certificate of
Appropriateness" we obtained to remove poplar trees in 2010. That certificate applies only to the
trees along Smith Street on the north side of the park. So, we can go ahead and remove the
remaining three poplars on that side. However, we need to submit a new application for the
trees on the south/Reiten Road side. The next opportunity to submit is October 2. Since I have a
copy of the initial application that Brian filled out in 2010, it will be fairly simple to put together a
new one and I'm happy to do that.
Probably the bigger issue is that the 2010 Certificate of Appropriateness that gave us permission
to remove the north side poplars specified some conditions. The first was that we submit a
written plan for tree replacement no later than June 24, 2012. The second was that we replace
the trees no later than June 24, 2013. We haven't done either. I'll find out from Todd what we
need to do to adjust those dates. rr
Could you guys provide me with a couple of things:
-A description of why the replacement has been/continues to be cost prohibitive? (i.e. What
would need to be done to the bank, how much it would cost, etc.)
-A suggested tree or trees that we will likely replace with when we can replace?
Thank you,
Ronda
Ronda Billerbeck, Cultural Programs Manager
Cultural Programs I Parks, Recreation &Community Services
220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032
Direct Line 253-856-5055 1 Fax 253-856-6050
rbr1erbeck(6)KentWA.Qov
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
KentWA.gov Facebook YouTube
tooCWA-R I M!,t f3LV0M'NIVITUMT1 I r3 r.-MAXL
i
County
•yr , } �__________���� VM� iry GOA#
W-MMON z 0 z 9 •
Certificate of Appropriateness Application
SUM11TTAL DATE: DATE RECEIVED:
I
.....$guano...wool......Nunn...................ooa N.........o....Eggs....
Property Name:
Address:
City:
Applicant:
Address:
City: State: Zip:
Phone:
Email:
...........a....................................No..............Won......
Owner:
Address:
City: State: Zip:
Phone:
Email:
.........................................................................
Is the project likely to receive Federal or State financial assistance?
If so, please indicate the source:
.........................................................................
Does the project require a building permit?
.........................a...............a.....Noma........a.....n......I
Project Summary: Please,describe the project in detail on a separate sheet. Refer to the COA
instructions sheet for additional submittal requirements.
............u.o...u........sun....No.........0.....an.........on.........
i
i
I
i
Certificate of Appropriateness Application
1
PROJECT SUMMARY;
I
I
l
i
i
i
i
LIM King Count/
LANDMARKS • •
Certificate of Appropriateness Application Instructions
A complete Certificate of Appropriateness Application must include the cover sheet, a complete project description and
photographs as described in detail below.
Project Description The project description consists of a written description of the proposal accompanied by
photographs and/or drawings illustrating the present condition and proposed alterations to a
landmark property. The project description should discuss in detail any proposed alterations or
additions to any element of a landmark property identified as a feature of significance in the
designation report.
The features of significance vary for each landmark property, but most often include all of the
building exterior, highly distinctive portions of the interior, outbuildings, elements of the
landscape, and/or the site itself. [To verify the what elements of a project should be discussed in
the application,contact Todd Scott,Design Review Coordinator at 296-8636] For each feature of
the landmark affected by the proposed project:
• Describe the location and current condition of the feature (reference photographs). Provide
information about the original design and materials of the feature, if known, including the date of
construction. Historic photographs may be helpful in determining the original appearance.
• Describe proposed alterations (reference photographs/drawings). Discuss the reason for the
proposed intervention and reason for selecting proposed alternative.
• Provide specific information about materials i.e, metal roofing,paint colors,or plantings,which
are proposed for use in the restoration/rehabilitation project. Include samples or specifications.
The application mast also include photographs, drawings, and/or color photocopies, which
clearly illustrate the existing conditions and the proposed work.
A sample project description is included on the back of this page for reference.
Application - Applications for Type H projects, which must be formally reviewed by the Design Review
Deadline Committee, need to be received by noon on the first Thursday of the month to ensure placement
on the upcoming agenda for the monthly Design Review Committee meeting which is generally
held on the second Thursday of each month. Applications for Type I projects will be reviewed by
Historic Preservation Program Staff within ten days of receipt.
Return completed application to:
Design Review Coordinator
Historic Preservation Program
201 S.Jackson,Suite 700 [MS:KSC-NR-07001
Seattle,WA 98104
Please Note: Applicants are encouraged to confer with the program staff or the Design Review
Committee prior to submitting an application. To schedule an appointment or discuss your
anticipated project, please contact Todd Scott,at(206)296-8636.
Sample Project Description
(Photographs, drawings, and samples
are referenced but not attached here)
Property; Old County Farmhouse, 1905
Project Summary: Restoration of front porch;repainting of the entire structure.
I
Porch:
Present condition: The porch presently consists of an asphalt shingle roof supported by wrought-iron posts.
The wooden porch floor is also deteriorated. The porch is presently in disrepair and pulling away from the main
structure.(Photographs 1-5)The current porch reflects alterations which occurred sometime after 1940. The !
configuration of the original porch,is revealed by the 1940 tax assessor's photograph,as well as earlier
photographs. The historic photographs reveal that the porch originally had four turned wooden posts supporting
a hipped,wood shingle roof.(Photographs 6-8).
Proposed work: Restoration of the original porch using a design based on historic photographs (Drawing 1).
Preliminary investigation of the porch roof indicates that the original framing is still in place;however the wood
has suffered severe water damage due to leaks in the porch roof,and may need to be replaced.
Painting:
Present condition: The house,last painted over 20 years ago,is presently white.Field examination indicates that
the home was originally gray with beige trim and window surrounds. The window martins were painted black,
The colors of the original porch cannot be verified,but we believe that the porch paint scheme most likely
matched the house.
Proposed work: Repaint the house in the original color scheme,using paints indicated on the enclosed samples.
The porch posts and brackets will be painted beige to match the trim on the house. The porch floor will be
painted a slightly darker gray than the main structure.
I
I
i
I
I
CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS
I
Technical Paper No. 20
i
' Historic Preservation Program,Department of Natural Resources and Parks
King County 201 S.Jackson,Suite 700,Seattle,WA 98104 206-477-4545 1 TTY Relay:711
Introduction
Any project that alters a designated feature of a King County Landmark must be approved through a
formal design review process. This paper provides information about the review process for
Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) applications. Technical Paper No. 21 provides additional
information on preparing a project for design review.
The King County Landmarks Ordinance establishes the COA review process and defines the types
of projects requiring review. Generally, alterations other than general in-kind maintenance and
minor repairs require a COA. Depending on the type of project proposed, an application for a COA
is reviewed by either the Historic Preservation Officer or the Design Review Committee of the
Landmarks Commission. Upon formal review and approval of a project,the applicant will receive a
certificate from the Historic Preservation Officer and/or the Landmarks Commission that clarifies
the scope of the approved work and allowing construction to begin.
The Certificate of Appropriateness process is separate from the building permit process. COAs
must be obtained before building permits can be issued. However,projects that may not require a
building permit must still have a COA in order to proceed. A COA is not required for routine
maintenance and repairs,or changes to utility systems such as plumbing and wiring which do
not disturb any significant historic features of the building. Examples of typical projects that do
not require a COA include reglazing a broken window or replacing missing shingles on a shingle
roof.
The Landmarks Ordinance establishes three types of Certificates of Appropriateness: Type I, Type
II, and Type III. Each type is described in more detail below.
Type I
Projects that involve restoration of historic features and major repairs using the same type of
materials originally found on the building require a Type I COA. An example of a project that
requires a Type I COA is replacing a deteriorated shingle roof with a new shingle roof.
i
Type I COAs are reviewed by the Historic Preservation Officer and applications are approved,
denied,or forwarded to the Landmarks Commission within ten days.
I
Type II
Projects that involve alterations in the appearance of the property require a Type II COA. Examples
of projects requiring a Type II COA are constructing an addition to a landmark building, or adding a
new building within the boundary of a landmark property or district.
II
Certificates of Appropriateness
Page 2
The Design Review Committee reviews Type II COA applications at a monthly meeting generally
held on the second Thursday of each month. The committee may either(a) enter into a written
agreement with the applicant/owner that specifies the approved work which is then ratified by the
Commission at a public meeting or(b)make a recommendation to the Landmarks Commission,
which after full public notice will hold a public hearing to act on the application. In either case, the
Landmarks Ordinance requires that an action be taken within forty-five day time period.
Type III
Projects that propose the demolition or relocation of landmark properties or the excavation of
archaeological sites require a Type III COA. These types of projects have an irreversible effect on a
landmark property, and therefore require the most stringent review. Consult the Landmarks
Ordinance (King County Code 20.62 at
http://www.kinjzcounty,i4ov/council/legislation/kc code asnx) for more information about the Type
III COA review process.
Some answers to questions about the COA process:
How can I expedite the review process?
Consult with the Design Review Coordinator(Todd Scott—206-477-4545)prior to preparing an
application to learn the schedule for upcoming meetings and deadlines for applications, discuss the
applicable guidelines, and obtain resources materials to plan your project. The Landmarks
Coordinator will also review your completed application to make sure it provides the information
the Design Review Committee will need to evaluate and recommend action on the proposed project.
When do I apply for a COA?
It is best to initiate the design review process prior to applying for any required permits from the
Department of Permitting and Environmental Review(DPER). If you submit an application for a
building or development permit to DPER without obtaining a COA, they will refer the project back
to the Landmarks Commission for its review and approval. More importantly, design review may
result in changes to the project design or specifications; apply for a COA prior to finalizing your
plans. Even if your project does not require a building permit, you should still apply for a COA as
early as possible in your planning/design process.
i
How do I know what changes are acceptable?
Alterations to King County Landmarks are evaluated using The Secretary oflnterior's Standards
for Rehabilitation. These standards include specific guidelines that are used throughout the country
to plan and guide the appropriate rehabilitation of historic properties. A copy of these standards and
guidelines can be obtained from the Historic Preservation Program.They are also available via the
Internet at: http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/rehab/rehab-standards.htm. Technical Paper 13
also includes useful information about the design guidelines and process.
What if I do not agree with the decision to approve or deny a COA?
Decisions of the Historic Preservation Officer(Type I COAs) can be appealed to the Landmarks
Commission within fifteen days after being issued. Decisions of the Landmarks Commission can
be appealed to the Metro-King County Council within thirty days of the decision. For more
information about the appeal process,consult with the Historic Preservation Officer or refer to the
Landmarks Ordinance.
I
i
Certificates of Appropriateness
Page 3
I
When does a COA expire?
While a COA does not have an expiration date, keep in mind that work must be completed exactly
as specified in the COA document issued to you. If the scope or nature of the work changes after
the COA is approved and issued,you will need to apply to have the initial COA amended.
To request a COA application form and instructions or to obtain more information about the design
review process,please contact the King County Historic Preservation Program at 206-477-4545.
i
I
Revised 02/14 j