Tacoma City Council will hold a public hearing Tues., July 20 at 5:30 p.m. at City Hall to take comment on a proposal to designate the city’s “Wedge” neighborhood an historic district.
The proposal has worked its way through City Hall since June 2008, when three Wedge residents submitted the historic district nomination to the city’s historic preservation office. According to the nomination, the Wedge neighborhood is an area of Tacoma that boasts more than 50 homes dating back 80 years or more. It’s also where Tacoma pioneer Aaron Titlow, candy company entrepreneurs Frank and Ethel Mars, and Titanic survivor Anne Kincaid resided. And it is ringed by Wright Park, the North Slope Historic District, and many of the city’s oldest churches.
The Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) began reviewing the nomination on Sept. 10, 2008. Since then, the commission has held a series of public meetings to discuss several elements of the application, such as district boundaries, buildings inventory, and the neighborhood’s historic significance. Last year, the LPC met Wedge residents, property owners, and other interested parties for a walking tour of the neighborhood.
If approved, the Wedge neighborhood will become the fourth historic district in Tacoma, and the second residential historic district, according to the city’s historic preservation office. The proposed district zoning overlay stretches north to south from Division Avenue to Sixth Avenue, and zig-zags in several places along the eastern border: the alley between South L Street and South M Street; the alley between South M Street and South Sheridan Avenue; and a portion of South M Street near Sixth Avenue. The proposal also includes several conservation districts.
After much discussion and a series of public meetings, on July 22, 2009, the LPC forwarded to the Planning Commission a recommendation to create the historic and conservation district overlay zones. The Planning Commission held a public hearing March 17 to collect feedback on the issue. During that meeting, many people testified for or against the historic district. Earlier this year, the Planning Commission voted four-to-two in favor of the proposed boundaries and recommended City Council adopt same.
For more information, visit http://www.tacomaculture.org/wedge.asp .
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
EDITOR’S NOTE: The Tacoma Daily Index has covered the Wedge historic district nomination since the application was submitted to City Hall nearly two years ago. The Index has published nearly two-dozen articles about the issue, including interviews with the authors of the nomination and residents in the neighborhood, public testimony of people who support or oppose the nomination, and photographs of a walking tour of the neighborhood with Tacoma’s Landmarks Preservation Commission. In light of this week’s City Council public hearing, we have reprinted each of those articles.
SEPT. 5, 2008 – MARCH 27, 2009 (PART ONE) — http://tacomadailyindex.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=88&cat=23&id=1807429&more=0
APRIL 16, 2009 – MARCH 10, 2010 (PART TWO) — http://tacomadailyindex.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=88&cat=23&id=1809055&more=0
MARCH 24, 2010 – JUNE 17, 2010 (PART THREE) — http://tacomadailyindex.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=88&cat=23&id=1809059&more=0
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
More voices heard as Wedge Historic District decision nears
By Todd Matthews
Mar 24 2010
http://tacomadailyindex.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=88&cat=23&id=1739504&more=0
The process for turning Tacoma’s Wedge neighborhood into a historic district continued March 17 when the City of Tacoma’s Planning Commission held a public meeting to hear arguments for or against the move.
If approved, the Wedge Neighborhood will become the fourth historic district in Tacoma, and the second residential historic district, according to the city’s historic preservation office. The proposed district zoning overlay stretches north to south from Division Avenue to Sixth Avenue, and zig-zags in several places along the eastern border: the alley between South L Street and South M Street; the alley between South M Street and South Sheridan Avenue; and a portion of South M Street near Sixth Avenue. The proposal also includes four conservation districts.
The proposal has worked its way through City Hall since June 2008, when three Wedge residents — Jean Carter, Char Cooper, and Laurie Hunger — submitted the historic district nomination to the city’s historic preservation office. According to the nomination, the Wedge neighborhood is an area of Tacoma that boasts more than 50 homes dating back 80 years or more. It’s also where Tacoma pioneer Aaron Titlow, candy company entrepreneurs Frank and Ethel Mars, and Titanic survivor Anne Kincaid resided. And it is ringed by Wright Park, the North Slope Historic District, and many of the city’s oldest churches.
The Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) began reviewing the nomination on Sept. 10, 2008. Since then, the commission has held a series of public meetings to discuss several elements of the application, such as district boundaries, buildings inventory, and the neighborhood’s historic significance. Last year, the LPC met Wedge residents, property owners, and other interested parties for a walking tour of the neighborhood.
Tacoma’s Planning Commission is collecting public comment until 5:00 p.m. Fri., March 26. The commission is expected to make a decision in April or May as to whether or not to recommend the historic district designation. In May, that recommendation will be forwarded to Tacoma City Council, which is tasked with making the final decision. Similarly, the council’s neighborhoods and housing committee is scheduled to receive an update on the proposal May 17 and make a recommendation to the full council. From there, City Council will hold a public hearing on the issue in June and could introduce an ordinance in July. For more information, visit http://www.tacomaculture.org/wedge.asp and http://www.cityoftacoma.org/Page.aspx?hid=13991 .
During the planning commission’s March 17 meeting, many people testified for or against the historic district.
Major Warren Dabis of the Salvation Army of Tacoma was concerned that the organization’s three parcels are included in one of the special conservation districts. One of the properties, located at 1521 Sixth Avenue, includes a former motel built in 1927 that now serves as the Salvation Army’s emergency lodge for 67 low-income people. According to Major Dabis, the organization has plans to expand the services offered on their sites by building a new facility in the future.
Lois Bernstein, MultiCare Health System’s Senior Vice President of Community Services, asked that the proposed eastern boundary be re-drawn to exclude four homes owned by MultiCare: three are vacant, and another is leased to a single family. The homes, which sit in the shadow of MultiCare’s hospital campus, are located at 1216 South Fourth Street (built in 1925); 1218 South Fourth Street (built in 1923); and 417 South M Street (built in 1905); and 407 South M Street (built in 1908).
Other property owners came forward to say they generally supported the historic district proposal, but did not want their properties included.
Still, most of the public testimony came from Wedge residents and preservationists who spoke of the neighborhood’s history, their desire to preserve it from future development, and a need to keep the conservation districts and district boundaries as they are currently proposed.
Here is a majority of the public testimony given during the planning commission’s meeting.
I. Major Warren Dabis, Salvation Army of Tacoma
I’ve just been here for about eight months now, and I’ve been thrown into this to really take a good look in seeing how this review would impact the Salvation Army, and it definitely does that. The Salvation Army is currently the owner of three parcels at 1521 Sixth Avenue, 1501 [Sixth Avenue], and a gravel parking lot that’s adjacent to Cushman Avenue. As we review these, the historic overlay and the conservation districts would affect our properties.
At the 1521 Sixth Avenue property, we have an emergency lodge that houses 67 people, which includes 14 units for families, as well as a single women’s dorm. At 1501 [Sixth Avenue], we have our administrative offices as well as a food bank, social services, and a warehouse for our food bank. Adjacent to that, we have the empty gravel lot, which we are currently looking at our future programs.
The buildings [at 1521 Sixth Avenue] were purchased in 1980, but they were built in the 1920s there. And in 1980, under Major Gordy Helms, they instituted their emergency lodge there. We are currently now still housed there. But that particular facility is really hindering us from really doing what we need to do for the clients that come our way for emergency lodging. I share that because in the next two or three years, the Salvation Army is going to be undertaking a feasibility study to see if we can raise money through our capital campaign to build in that gravel parking lot a new facility that will have 47 units with a maximum bed facility of 118 beds.
We are fully realizing that we want to be very accommodating to the community. But we also do have the obligation to take care of Pierce County as well as Tacoma residents in the programs that we have there.
At the moment, our lodge is very literally falling down around us. It’s to the point of where — it’s really not doing well in helping us to do what we need to do for the clients and the residents that come our way. Our concern here is that this [historic district overlay] may hinder us from truly doing what we need to do to take care of people. We fully understand historic conservation efforts here. We are looking really toward the future in seeing what we can do. We have already met with architects to see what we can do to accommodate how it fits into the community. We truly do understand the need for this. However, we also truly do need to understand that already at 11 per cent unemployment, we need to take care of the needs of Pierce County and Tacoma residents.
So our concern really is to see how this would encumber us in our future plans of program building and facility building in the future. Our plans are really to take a look at removing that facility at 1521 Sixth Avenue to accommodate parking at that particular area.
So I would just ask you to really look at these concerns that we have because they’re just not a matter of buildings there. It’s a matter of us doing the programs that are necessary to help people get back on their feet and to permanently be housed.
II. Lois Bernstein, Senior Vice President of Community Services, MultiCare Health System
We’ve been involved in the proposed Wedge Historic District application process since 2008 and have attended the Landmarks Preservation Commission meetings and the planning commission meetings, so we have a very good sense of where we are in this process. We’ve also met with commission members, some members of the Planning Commission, and residents. As stated in previous letters that we’ve provided to both the Landmarks Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission, we support the efforts of the Wedge neighborhood residents to preserve an area of historic residences within Tacoma. The issue for us isn’t so much a designation of a historic district. It’s the boundaries of that district. We’ll be providing the planning commission with a follow-up letter that outlines our reasons for requesting that boundary be modified. But I would like to take a few minutes right now, staying within my five minutes, to highlight some of the key points that will be part of the written submission.
The current boundary along the eastern edge of the proposed district does not reflect owner preference. We understand that a component of historic preservation initiatives, and perhaps a key component, reflects owner preference. We believe that information may not have been previously apparent. What I have here is a map that indicates the current boundary and the boundary that we are proposing, which would be the alley way. What you see here in red are all of the properties, residences, and other owners who are not in favor of being included in the historic designation. There are three properties, two property owners within this, that are in favor, the rest aren’t. Eighteen of the 22 parcels included in the area bordering South M Street are opposed to including their properties in the Wedge Historic District or conservation district. Seven of 10 property owners along the eastern boundary are opposed to being included in the historic district or the conservation district.
The second issue I would like to bring up is that the proposed zone creates irregular, unpredictable, and zigzag boundaries in the way that it has currently been drawn, especially along the toe, or the peninsula, that extends east of South M Street. We propose that the eastern edge of the historic district be a straight line running the alley between South M Street and South Sheridan Street. It’s a predictable straight line and reflects the majority of the owner preferences. With the alternative boundary as we’re proposing, it also excludes the Hospital/Medical zoned areas from the proposed historic and conservation districts.
III. Julie Buffington, Wedge resident
My husband, Ross, and I live in the Wedge neighborhood. Ross regrets that he can’t be here tonight. He’s out of town on business and asked me to speak for both of us to let you know we are strong supporters of the Wedge application to become a historic district. In reviewing the application, we ask that you take special note of the following.
This application was a true grass-roots effort of the Wedge residents. The City’s Landmarks Preservation Commission unanimously found that the Wedge application meets four of the criteria specified in the Tacoma Municipal Code for inclusion on the Tacoma Register for Historic Places. This includes association with the lives of persons significant in our past and buildings of historic architectural importance.
Also, our application has been endorsed by Historic Tacoma, the North End Neighborhood Council, and the North Slope Historic District. The postcard survey conducted by the landmarks commission and the comments made at their public hearing show overwhelming support from our neighborhood residents for the application.
The Wedge residents and the landmarks commission made a special effort to restrict the boundaries of the historic district to areas zoned Residential. This includes the four residences owned by MultiCare on South 4th and South M Streets. This was done as much as possible to avoid objections to the creation of the Wedge Historic District.
I’d like to take a moment to talk about MultiCare. Ross and I are happy to have MultiCare as a neighbor. We feel that MultiCare has made significant efforts over the past several years to be good neighbors to the people in the Wedge. They’ve listened to our concerns about parking and traffic issues, and they have taken positive steps to address these issues.
Nevertheless, in our opinion, the impetus for the creation of the Wedge Historic District [was] MultiCare’s purchase and demolition of the First United Methodist Church. The loss of this historic church, with virtually no effort made to find an adaptive re-use, was a shock to all of us.
MultiCare has stated publicly that they support the Wedge Historic District as long as their properties are not included. Nonetheless, in the fall of 2008, MultiCare invited the Wedge residents to a review of their 20-year master plan for future development. At that meeting, Rick Booth, MultiCare’s Vice President of Operations, assured Wedge residents that MultiCare had no plans to expand beyond its current borders. According to Mr. Booth, future expansion would rise up, not out, from the existing campus.
We’ve offered to work with MultiCare to find an adaptive re-use for the three houses. One possibly would be to convert the houses into temporary residences for medical interns, nurses, or family members of MultiCare patients, or return the houses to the private real estate market. In our view, approval of the proposed historic district boundaries along South Fourth and South M Streets — boundaries already approved by the Landmarks Preservation Commission, and which are zoned for residential purposes only — is critical to the success of our historic preservation efforts in the Wedge. We strongly urge you to approve the Wedge Historic District application and the proposed boundaries. Thanks very much for your time and effort that you made to consider our application. Tacoma is really a great place to live, and the Wedge is a great place to live. Please help us preserve our historic character.
IV. Gabrielle Scannell, Wedge property owner
I own the property at 421 South M Street. It’s currently the Stringfellow Apartment Building, previously known, of course, as the Mason. My husband purchased this building in 1989. It being an apartment building, I’ve spent a lot of time painting and scraping and sanding and working, even moreso than maybe your average home-owner who might have potentially owned a home in the area for 20 years. I am very sentimentally attached to my building and the neighborhood itself. I’ve watched it really improve greatly in the 20 years.
It’s funny that I’m up here talking because I am very much in support of the Wedge designation as a historic area. My only concern for us — and it’s a difficult place to be in being so passionately in love with this area and my building that I’ve spent so much time on — it’s in the little proposed conservation district on that boundary that everyone is talking about, that eastern boundary. I think for us, I would love to see this neighborhood become a historic place. Definitely. But for us, we bought it as a commercial investment. It’s so hard for me to — especially in such a difficult economic time — try to keep myself not sentimental about it. For myself, being the owner of a commercial property in a little bit of a bump out from the Wedge shape, I’m just concerned that this property that we have struggled with and nurtured as a commercial endeavor, all of that potential would suddenly not be maybe available to us anymore.
We have zero plans for ever even touching our building. It’s more original probably than most of the houses these people are speaking of so lovingly. I mean, as an apartment building, it’s still exactly the way it was when it was built in 1918, with the exception of one unit that had a kitchen re-model. It’s a wonderful building and this is a wonderful idea. But I definitely have to keep my head on my shoulders and be concerned about my particular property being a commercial property and being potentially severely limited in what this property might eventually be valued at.
V. Judson C. Gray, Attorney
I’m appearing today on behalf of the owners of 502 South M Street, which are parcels ending in 0021, 0022, 0010, and 0051. They’re on the eastern boundary that MultiCare talked about, right there in the proposed conservation district. We are one of the owners that MultiCare talked about that is opposed to being included in the district for the following reasons.
Number one, my client’s building, is in a Hospital/Medical zone. We believe the purposes and the goals of a Hospital/Medical zone are diametrically opposed to those goals in a conservation/historical district.
Secondly, if you go out and look at my client’s building, he’s got a long, warehouse-type-looking, two- to three-story building, a parking lot, and a small outbuilding. I urge you to go look at his building. There’s nothing historical about his building. It doesn’t need to be conserved. It doesn’t really fit into the concept of being preserved through the proposed overlays.
We’re also in favor of what MultiCare had to say about excluding my client’s property so that you have a more consistent boundary in your proposed district because, just as a practical matter, the owner told me he’s not opposed to the concept of a historical district, he just doesn’t think it applies to his piece of property, which is in a Hospital/Medical zone.
VI. Diane Walkup, Wedge resident
I’ve lived at 413 South M Street going on 25 years. I own the house next door to me, which I’m currently temporarily using. It will be re-converting back to a single-family residence, and then [I will] probably renting it out or selling it. I support the Wedge Historic District designation, specifically the area that is zoned R-2 [Residential], which includes both sides of South M Street.
Why do I support this?
I want my neighborhood back. I’ve waited a long time to have a solid, stable neighborhood with our old homes and large trees preserved and protected, and with property speculators and commercial interests gone. This was the intent of the 1990 down-zone. At that time, MultiCare owned 401 South M Street, and a doctor owned 1216 South Fourth Street and 407 and 417 South M Street. They both fought the down-zone and lost, including the appeal.
Turn to the collection of papers I passed out. Ordinance Number 24528. This created the down-zone of the Wedge district in 1990. It had not been re-zoned since the 1950s. So this is fairly recent. Now, quickly look at page 3, and the page numbers I’m using are the large, black circled numbers on the top right. Quickly look at page 3: ‘The re-zone is an irregularly shaped area bounded by Sixth Avenue, Division, and South L.’ Page 5, Item 6: ‘The intent of the requested area-wide zoning is to preserve and protect the predominantly single-family Wedge area from encroaching incompatible development, particularly development related to the medical facilities to the east.’ Page 7, Item 15: ‘Exclusion of the properties on east and west sides of South M from the area-wide re-zone would substantially compromise the purposes intended to be achieved, i.e., the preservation of the predominantly single-family residential neighborhood known as the Wedge.’ Page 13, top paragraph: ‘We have reviewed the letter from MultiCare and the letter from Dr. McNaughton requesting the exclusion of certain properties in the northeast corner.’ Now turn to the back page quickly, top: ‘Therefore, the planning department recommends boundaries to remain as presented and MultiCare and Dr. McNaughton’s request to have their properties removed from the re-zone denied.’
MultiCare has the money, power, and influence to severely compromise a wonderful neighborhood just because they want the land. They ignored the residential re-zoning when they bought the three houses from Dr. McNaughton. So now instead of one house [belonging to] MultiCare, [and] three [belonging to] Doctor McNaughton, it’s the four houses owned by MultiCare on the east side of M Street.
Shortly after the re-zone, the down-zone was approved. MultiCare sold their house at 401 South M Street to a resident who still lives there and has resisted efforts by MultiCare to buy this house back. When MultiCare bought the initial three houses in 2004, I had every expectation they would keep these houses continuously occupied, make repairs as needed, and by being a good neighbor, I might one day have sold to them when I was ready to sell — not because I was forced out because they were deliberately trying to de-value our neighborhood and create an unlivable situation. Now four houses empty are an unlivable situation, especially three of them empty for four years.
In desperation, in 2006, I went to Dr. Brown, former Chief Operating Officer of MultiCare, begging him to do some repair to the house right next door to me. And I soon found out, I mean, I must be so naive, to my horror he said, “MultiCare is not in the rental property business. What we’re doing is called ‘block-busting.’ Everyone does it.” That was a turning point for me. I would loved to have worked with MultiCare. [Editor’s Note: The five-minute time limit for public testimony passes] Can I have one more minute? Please? Thank you. Because I’m in the block most affected by your decision.
This committee has the opportunity to stand up and do the right thing. MultiCare has egregiously misrepresented the amount of property [owners] against this re-zone. It’s ridiculous. Eighteen out of 22. I will provide evidence. We have four residents living there. One is against it, and three are for the historic district. MultiCare is the fifth property owner. They are against it. Well, of course. It’s clear that MultiCare is really trying hard to keep their houses in our neighborhood so it can tear them down and we’ll be surrounded by parking lots. I don’t want that. I’ve lived there too long. We all want a nice neighborhood with families and we don’t want to be forced out. So I really hope you leave the boundaries as is. Thank you very much for your consideration.
VII. Reid Carr, Wedge resident
Me and my wife actually bought our home one year ago this month. We specifically bought this home because we liked the old historic homes in this neighborhood, and we’re planning on doing some restoration on that home.
I’m really discouraged by what MultiCare wants to do in changing the boundary between the alley between fourth and fifth and M and L, or what they are calling the eastern boundary. I believe MultiCare is grossly misrepresenting what the home-owners there want to do. They talk about having 18 residences or people who are against or are for moving the boundary, and I think that’s a gross misrepresentation because MultiCare owns many of those properties. Of course they are in favor of that. Many of those homes that they own there, particularly four residences that are right there, they have left vacant for four years, just sitting there, vacant, have done absolutely nothing with the properties. They are deteriorating. They are historic homes of historic value. So I would like to see MultiCare do something with that.
I invite you to come walk the neighborhood. If you’re just looking on the map, you don’t get the feel of what the neighborhood is. If you come walk that neighborhood, particularly in that block, you will see that it is still an actual, intact, residential neighborhood and we would very much like to keep it that way.
VIII. Deborah Cade, North Slope Historic District resident
I’m a member of the North Slope Historic District board and I’m here to support the creation of the Wedge Historic District, and creating it according to the boundaries that were approved by the Landmarks Preservation Commission.
I wanted to address a couple other points here that I don’t think have been mentioned tonight.
One is the — well, a couple different aspects of the economic benefit of the historic district, which you’ve probably already heard. But people who do a lot of work on historic restoration can be eligible for some property tax benefits. That money then comes back into the community, largely in the form of costs and expenses that are used to renovate those houses in the purchase of materials, payment to contractors, et cetera.
Secondly, the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation documented several years ago how historic homes and historic neighborhoods actually gained more value over time than comparable homes that were not in historic neighborhoods because people have an incentive to do a lot of really high quality work on those homes and really take care of them, really increase their value. A realtor in our neighborhood who serves on our board actually found that during the more recent economic downturn, when housing values had fallen, values in historic neighborhoods actually held their value moreso than comparable neighborhoods.
We really support keeping the boundaries as they’ve been established and not making the changes that MultiCare has requested. There are several houses that have all been discussed here this evening that would be at some risk of either further deterioration because of being left vacant or from demolition. That’s one of the reasons for the historic district: to protect those homes; to make sure that they’re not subject to demolition for some reason that doesn’t depend on being located in a historic neighborhood.
Several of those homes are — two of them were built in the 1920s, two were built in the very-early 1900s. They are all contributing structures and they should be protected. MultiCare has not demonstrated why they have to have that particular location for expansion. There’s no need to destroy part of a historic residential neighborhood in order to expand a use that can be put in virtually any neighborhood. These neighborhoods are irreplaceable. Residential neighborhoods aren’t built this way now. We have cul de sac developments that are totally dependent on cars. You don’t have little neighborhood parks. You don’t have places that you can walk to, commercials districts that are pedestrian-friendly or transit-friendly like the older neighborhoods. Newer houses aren’t built with the same materials our older houses are built from. Our old houses are going to be around long after we are and new construction that you see now is not probably going to outlast us.
We need to do what we can to protect these neighborhoods that are intact and that have all of these values as historic residential neighborhoods. I ask for your full support of the plan as it’s been proposed.
IX. P.J. Hummel, Wedge resident
I’m here to say that Paul, my husband, and I support the historic district and its boundaries to include M Street.
We’ve lived in the Wedge for over 20 years. We have the 405 and 407 Sheridan properties, and those were designed by Silas Nelson, a very famous architect here in Tacoma. Our house at 405 was voted one of the most beautiful homes in Tacoma in 1930. The little cottage in the backyard was featured in ‘House & Garden’ magazine as a ‘tiny tot’ of a home. It had all of the convenience in a tiny 500-square-foot space.
When we first came to the Wedge, it was a very affordable neighborhood. At that time, we were starving artists, we couldn’t afford the North End prices, and we found this eclectic little neighborhood wedged in between South Sixth Street and Division Avenue. We thought that the house was a gem in that it was never remodeled. It was in such beautiful original condition. We worked really hard to restore it. We raised our family there. There’s been three generations of families have lived in our house.
Over the years, we’ve seen a lot of changes happen in our neighborhood with the expansion of MultiCare. There were a few years back when our neighborhood was asked if we would give a little bit so that MultiCare could expand down, I think, South Fifth Street. We were told that if we could let them put in their parking garage, they would make sure there would be a pedestrian walkway so we could still go to the park without having to send our kids out on to busy Sixth Avenue and Division. That walkway, or that pedestrian corridor, it turned into just a stairway full of urine. [It’s] filthy and no place you would want to walk your dog through. That became the only access through our neighborhood. Now it’s totally closed up with all of their new construction and the fact that they sort of blind-sided our neighborhood and tore down that beautiful church.
I feel like our neighborhood has been held hostage by MultiCare and the slum landlords that are hoping to cash in on selling to MultiCare if the zoning would change in their favor. What has happened there is that it has held our property values very low because of these derelict houses. MultiCare has slowly, quietly bought up little houses as they become available and left them empty. I just feel like they are trying to demoralize us by depressing our home values.
They do things like not providing enough parking for their employees, and so my house is used as a free MultiCare parking lot. Every single day, their employees park for 10-plus hours a day, and if I come home too early, I can’t park anywhere near my house to unload my groceries. We’ve put lots of notes out. They told us that the fix for this is to, you know, get the parking zone signs. I’m thinking, like, I don’t mind sharing parking and my neighbors love to have company. It’s like, why do I have to pay to put up a sign to harass my neighbors and my friends so they can’t park in front of my house just to have MultiCare’s people not use and abuse our neighborhood?
I guess I’m up here fighting for our beautiful little neighborhood. I hope that you will approve our historic district.
X. Brett Santhuff, Historic Tacoma
Historic Tacoma did submit written testimony. But we wanted to express two further things and elaborate on them.
First of all, how very impressed we are with the residents of the Wedge who went through this tremendous effort to research their neighborhood and submit a nomination to become a historic district. It takes a real sense of pride in ownership to have that kind of dedication.
This past summer, Historic Tacoma, with the Tacoma Historical Society, did a walking tour of the Wedge. As part of that, we created this walking tour booklet. There’s a stack of them at the entrance for anyone that wants them. If you haven’t gotten one of these and walked through the Wedge with this as your guide, I would suggest you do that because there are a lot of real gems in this neighborhood. Many great single-family residences. But also a great range of early multi-family housing types. For me, this was one of the highlights of the tour. As part of the walking tour, the residents were an integral part of that tour. We had multiple stopping points along the route where they came out and they talked to residents of Tacoma and told them about their own block, their house, who lived there in the past, the type of architecture it was.
Secondly, we wanted to support the boundaries the Landmarks Preservation Commission proposed. These do much to protect the integrity of the neighborhood and also give it a clear identity. This is both a preservation and a planning issue. I feel the conservation districts you proposed really give that shape of the Wedge and the neighborhood a stronger identity than what the Landmarks Preservation Commission had earlier put out there.
XI. Joy Hardeman, Wedge Resident
I’m here to really support the recommendation of the Wedge becoming a historical district. The Wedge is incredible not just because of its history, but because of its intergenerationality. I mean, there are kids still playing and families still playing in front of my house in the little park with swings in it where all the kids come out. It’s incredible because of its diversity, both in terms of class, in terms of retired people, in terms of entrepreneurial people. And it is one of the thriving kinds of mixed communities that is still existing here in Tacoma.
In terms of the boundaries, I support in some way the Salvation Army being able to move the people in that existing building to another building because my window looks out at their roof and they do not have a good roof. Sometimes it rains and you can see the people all being huddled. So they need to move and develop. So I’d like to see that happen because it still makes it a mixed-use neighborhood and the people from the Salvation Army can see the people from the Wedge and know what’s possible if you do what you need to do. I am not in support of the MultiCare expansion. It feels like Gollum coming up to eat a really beautiful community. And so I would just like you to think about that in your deliberations.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Planning Commission decision on Wedge Historic District looms
By Todd Matthews
May 18 2010
The City of Tacoma’s Planning Commission is scheduled this week to move closer toward finalizing the boundaries of an historic district proposed for the city’s Wedge neighborhood.
On May 19 at 4 p.m., the commission will complete its review of the proposed boundaries for the Wedge Historic District and its conservation districts, and draft regulatory changes including design guidelines for the proposed overlay district and conservation districts, according to materials prepared for the meeting.
“It is staff’s intent to get final direction from the [Planning] Commission regarding the Wedge Neighborhood Historic and Conservation Districts so that a final recommendation letter and findings and recommendations report can be prepared for approval at the next meeting,” wrote Donna Stenger, the planning division’s acting manager, in a May 13 letter to the commission.
The proposal has worked its way through City Hall since June 2008, when three Wedge residents — Jean Carter, Char Cooper, and Laurie Hunger — submitted the historic district nomination to the city’s historic preservation office. According to the nomination, the Wedge neighborhood is an area of Tacoma that boasts more than 50 homes dating back 80 years or more. It’s also where Tacoma pioneer Aaron Titlow, candy company entrepreneurs Frank and Ethel Mars, and Titanic survivor Anne Kincaid resided. And it is ringed by Wright Park, the North Slope Historic District, and many of the city’s oldest churches.
The Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) began reviewing the nomination on Sept. 10, 2008. Since then, the commission has held a series of public meetings to discuss several elements of the application, such as district boundaries, buildings inventory, and the neighborhood’s historic significance. Last year, the LPC met Wedge residents, property owners, and other interested parties for a walking tour of the neighborhood.
If approved, the Wedge neighborhood will become the fourth historic district in Tacoma, and the second residential historic district, according to the city’s historic preservation office. The proposed district zoning overlay stretches north to south from Division Avenue to Sixth Avenue, and zig-zags in several places along the eastern border: the alley between South L Street and South M Street; the alley between South M Street and South Sheridan Avenue; and a portion of South M Street near Sixth Avenue. The proposal also includes four conservation districts.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing March 17 to collect feedback on the issue. During that meeting, many people testified for or against the historic district.
Major Warren Dabis of the Salvation Army of Tacoma was concerned that the organization’s three parcels are included in one of the special conservation districts. One of the properties, located at 1521 Sixth Avenue, includes a former motel built in 1927 that now serves as the Salvation Army’s emergency lodge for 67 low-income people. According to Major Dabis, the organization has plans to expand the services offered on their sites by building a new facility in the future.
Lois Bernstein, MultiCare Health System’s Senior Vice President of Community Services, asked that the proposed eastern boundary be re-drawn to exclude four homes owned by MultiCare: three are vacant, and another is leased to a single family. The homes, which sit in the shadow of MultiCare’s hospital campus, are located at 1216 South Fourth Street (built in 1925); 1218 South Fourth Street (built in 1923); and 417 South M Street (built in 1905); and 407 South M Street (built in 1908).
Other property owners came forward to say they generally supported the historic district proposal, but did not want their properties included.
Still, most of the public testimony came from Wedge residents and preservationists who spoke of the neighborhood’s history, their desire to preserve it from future development, and a need to keep the conservation districts and district boundaries as they are currently proposed.
The planning commission meeting will take place on Weds., May 19 at 4 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Tacoma Municipal Building, 747 Market St., first floor. For more information on this proposal, visit http://www. cityoftacoma.org/planning (click on Wedge Neighborhood Historic District).
— WHAT’S AT ISSUE IN THE WEDGE NEIGHBORHOOD? —
When the City of Tacoma’s Planning Commission meets this week, it will face several issues related to the Wedge Historic District proposal. Most spring from a public hearing March 17 where concerns were raised by neighborhood residents and property owners.
The materials for this week’s meeting include a breakdown of some of the key issues and policy questions prepared by City Hall staff, as well as a map referencing many of the concerns. They are reprinted in today’s edition of the Index.
A. The Property at 421 South M Street — The Landmarks Preservation Commission omitted this property from its July 22, 2009 recommendation to the Planning Commission in response to the property owner’s stated opposition to inclusion in the historic district, as well as a desire to follow the R-2SRD zoning boundary (property is zoned HM). The property was added to the proposed conservation overlay by the Planning Commission on February 17, 2010. The property is a historically significant apartment building.
B. The 400 Block of South M Street — Much of the testimony and commentary received by the Landmarks Preservation Commission and Planning Commission has concerned this boundary. The following may be characterized as key factors:
— The Landmarks Preservation Commission included the eastern side of South M Street in its 2009 recommendation because it was felt that the edge of the district was clearly defined by the development pattern change at the alley between L and M Streets, because this is consistent with the R-2SRD zoning boundary, and because the affected homes are considered historically contributing to the district;
— Two residential property owners in the 400 Block of South M Street, representing ownership of 3 parcels, support inclusion;
— Three residential property owners in the same area, representing ownership of 3 parcels, are opposed to inclusion;
— The remaining affected property owner is MultiCare, which owns 4 historically contributing homes purchased between 2003 and 2005, and a non-historic daycare center that occupies 4 parcels on the west side of South M Street. MultiCare has consistently expressed its opposition to inclusion of its properties in the proposed historic and conservation districts;
— The area was downzoned to R-2SRD in 1990, with the objective of preserving the historic single-family character of the neighborhood. The eastern boundary was set at the alley centerline between South L and M Streets;
— However, the Land Use Intensity designation, established in 1980, is not consistent with the zoning boundary. The line between Low and Medium Intensity is located at the centerline of South M Street. Of note, there are similar occurrences in the HMR-SRD zone north of Division, in the North Slope Historic District.
C. The Berg Apartments at 1304 Division Avenue — The Landmarks Preservation Commission omitted this property from its July 22, 2009 recommendation to the Planning Commission in response to the property owner’s stated opposition to inclusion in the historic district, as well as a desire to follow the R-2SRD zoning boundary (property is zoned HM). The property was added to the proposed conservation overlay by the Planning Commission on February 17, 2010. The property is a historically significant apartment building.
D. The 500 Block of South M Street (western side) — These properties were added to the proposed conservation overlay by the Planning Commission on Feb. 17, 2010. These parcels are owned by a single owner, who has stated opposition to inclusion in the district, specifically due to the concern that future development potential may be hindered. The properties are zoned HM.
E. The property at 404 South Sheridan — The Landmarks Preservation Commission omitted this property from its July 22, 2009 recommendation to the Planning Commission in response to the property owner’s stated opposition to inclusion in the historic district, based on religious grounds. The property is classified by the Pierce County Assessor as Religious Use. The property was added to the proposed conservation overlay by the Planning Commission on February 17, 2010, and is considered a historically contributing residential building. No further comment was received from the property owner.
F. The properties at 1421 and 1501 6th Avenue — These properties were included in the Landmarks Preservation Commission’s July 22, 2009 recommendation for inclusion in the proposed conservation district, and were retained in the Planning Commission’s proposed districts on February 17, 2010. Concern regarding potential effect on future development was expressed by the property owner, the Salvation Army, at the March 17, 2010 hearing. Both parcels are zoned C-2.
G. The property at 1521 6th Avenue — This property is considered historically contributing to the district and was included within the historic district recommendation from the Landmarks Preservation Commission on July 22, 2009, and retained in the Planning Commission’s proposed district released on Feb. 17, 2010. Concern regarding potential effect on future development was expressed by the property owner, the Salvation Army, at the March 17, 2010 hearing. Specifically, this parcel may be planned for redevelopment as a surface lot, according to testimony. This would likely be prohibited if designated as a historically contributing property. The property is zoned C-2.
H. The Properties in the 1600 Block of 6th Avenue — These properties were included within the conservation district recommendation from the Landmarks Preservation Commission on July 22, 2009, and retained in the Planning Commission’s proposed district released on February 17, 2010. The structures in this area include a historic period warehouse, and the Trinity Presbyterian Church and Rectory, also considered historically significant. No comment has been received from these property owners, or comment specifically addressing these properties.
I. The Property at 1703 6th Avenue — The Landmarks Preservation Commission omitted this property from its July 22, 2009 recommendation to the Planning Commission because it was not considered a historically contributing property (constructed in 1986, currently the “It’s Greek to Me” restaurant). The property was added to the proposed conservation district by the Planning Commission on Feb. 17, 2010.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Tacoma City Council will soon review Wedge historic district proposal
By Todd Matthews
Jun 17 2010
http://www.tacomadailyindex.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=88&cat=23&id=1790253&more=0
A request has been made to Tacoma City Council to hold a public hearing at City Hall regarding a proposal to designate the city’s “Wedge” neighborhood an historic district.
On June 1, the city’s historic preservation officer submitted documents to the council’s office to place the request for a public hearing on the council’s June 29 agenda. If approved, the public hearing would occur during city council’s meeting Tues., July 20 at 5:30 p.m.
The Wedge historic district proposal has worked its way through City Hall since June 2008, when three Wedge residents — Jean Carter, Char Cooper, and Laurie Hunger — submitted the historic district nomination to the city’s historic preservation office. According to the nomination, the Wedge neighborhood is an area of Tacoma that boasts more than 50 homes dating back 80 years or more. It’s also where Tacoma pioneer Aaron Titlow, candy company entrepreneurs Frank and Ethel Mars, and Titanic survivor Anne Kincaid resided. And it is ringed by Wright Park, the North Slope Historic District, and many of the city’s oldest churches.
The Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) began reviewing the nomination on Sept. 10, 2008. Since then, the commission has held a series of public meetings to discuss several elements of the application, such as district boundaries, buildings inventory, and the neighborhood’s historic significance. Last year, the LPC met Wedge residents, property owners, and other interested parties for a walking tour of the neighborhood.
If approved, the Wedge neighborhood will become the fourth historic district in Tacoma, and the second residential historic district, according to the city’s historic preservation office. The proposed district zoning overlay stretches north to south from Division Avenue to Sixth Avenue, and zig-zags in several places along the eastern border: the alley between South L Street and South M Street; the alley between South M Street and South Sheridan Avenue; and a portion of South M Street near Sixth Avenue. The proposal also includes several conservation districts.
After much discussion and a series of public meetings, on July 22, 2009, the LPC forwarded to the Planning Commission a recommendation to create the historic and conservation district overlay zones. The Planning Commission held a public hearing March 17 to collect feedback on the issue. During that meeting, many people testified for or against the historic district.
On May 19, the Planning Commission voted four-to-two in favor of the proposed boundaries and recommended City Council adopt same.
For more information, visit http://www.tacomaculture.org/wedge.asp .
