2003-08-14 Historic Preservation Commission MinutesHISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES
August 14, 2003
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting of the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission was called to order at 3:30 p.m. in the 3rd Floor Conference
Room of City Hall, 121 — 5t1i Avenue North.
PRESENT ABSENT
Darrell Marmion, Chair Ed Baker
Gregg Arnold, Vice Chair
Stephen Waite
Chuck LeWarne
Barbara Kindness
Michael Plunkett
2. READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes available for approval.
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Star Campbell, Planner
Chair Marmion noted that "Item 4—Designation Reviews" was left off of the agenda and should be included on future
agendas even if there are no designation reviews scheduled to come before the Commission.
4. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
There was no one present in the audience.
5. DESIGN REVIEWS
There were no public hearings scheduled on the agenda.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Council Member Plunkett said he talked with Ms. Hanby, one of the members of the church, who put in a request to move
forward with the historical preservation designation process. It looks like this request will come before the Commission for
review in September or October. He said Mr. Chave researched whether the nomination process would be quasi-judicial or
not. While the City Attorney has advised that the nomination process is not quasi-judicial, Councilmember Plunkett
suggested it would be important for the Commission to clearly understand what they will be voting on. They must be careful
not to get too far involved in the emotional or political aspect of issues that come before them. Rather, they should review
applications based on the standards that have been identified.
Chair Marmion noted that, as per the Commission's bylaws, applications would be reviewed based on specific criteria that
would not include political or land use decisions. Ms. Campbell said that, at this time, the staff uses the nomination form as
an application document. Staff will be asking people to fill the form out to the best of their ability. The form should help the
staff evaluate the application based on the criteria in the ordinance and aid them in preparing their presentation and
recommendation to the Commission. The staff report will identify each of the criteria and explain how the applicant has or
has not demonstrated that they meet the criteria.
Councilmember Plunkett said it is important for the Commission to understand that they don't have to follow the staffs
recommendation. Also, the Commission members will need to receive the staff report in a timely fashion (at least a week in
advance) so they have a few days to review all of application information.
The Commission discussed whether or not the Commissioners would be allowed to visit the individual sites before
considering the application. Councilmember Plunkett advised that since these applications are not considered quasi-judicial
in nature, there would be nothing to prohibit the Commissioners from visiting the individual sites. Chair Marmion noted that
the criteria identified in the bylaws state that any observations from visiting the site should be included in the review.
Commissioner LeWarne said his recollection is that at the State and National level, churches are generally not listed on the
registers, except for in very extraordinary circumstances. He suggested that staff double check to make sure this is true.
Commissioner Arnold suggested that while the Commission would be limited as to what they can say to the press, from a
communications standpoint, they may want to notify the press once the paperwork is in the public forum to let them know
what the Commission's interests and limitations are. Chair Marmion agreed that the Commission should start by educating
themselves, the applicant and then the public. The press is a good way to get information out to the public. Commissioner
Arnold said it is important for the press to understand the Commission's role in the process so that they are not construed as a
group that is taking sides.
Chair Marmion said he had hoped that the first hearing would not be controversial so the Commission could work out the
bugs in their procedures without having a public audience and a debate. He cautioned that it appears the reason they are
pushing this application through so quickly is that someone is concerned about the property. This can almost give a negative
impression of the historic preservation program. Commissioner Arnold said that, to the extent that this application could be
construed as "somebody throwing up a road block to keep a building from being torn down," the Commission should make it
clear that is not what is happening. Chair Marmion agreed, but said that some members of the public may have a different
perception.
The Commission discussed that, up to this point, there has been no press coverage for the application. Councilmember
Plunkett reviewed the standards the Commission would use to review the application. One is whether or not the building has
certain characteristics that should be considered as something that has historic value to the community. If the Commission's
responsibility stops there, they will have met their obligation. Whatever happens after that is up to the City Council and the
property owners.
Ms. Campbell pointed out that the Commission would not make the decision as to whether or not to put the church on the
register. Their decision would be whether or not they believe it is eligible to be on the register. It will ultimately take the
property owner to proceed through the process of putting the building on the register if the Commission decides that it is
eligible. She said that while the City Attorney has indicated that this process is not quasi-judicial, the Commission should
remember that it is a legislative issue. They should keep in mind the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine and avoid talking
about particular projects excessively or giving any indication that they do or do not support a nomination before they have
actually held the public hearing and are at the point of making a decision.
Commissioner Waite asked if Commissioners would be allowed talk to citizens who contact them regarding the application.
Ms. Campbell said that as long as the Commissioners keep in mind that if they are talking about a specific project, they
should not evaluate it over the phone or give any impression as to how they will vote on the nomination. They could talk
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
August 14, 2003 Page 2
about the Commission, the architecture of the building, etc. but they should not discuss whether or not a building would meet
the criteria.
Commissioner Arnold questioned if the Commission is prepared to do an evaluation of a building. He said his understanding
was that the Commission would first hire a consultant to complete the inventory and create a context statement. Until these
two projects are done, he questioned if the Commission would be premature in considering applications now. Commissioner
Waite agreed these two items would help establish the direction of the Commission. Each Commission and community has
its own flavor. However, since the Commission is in existence, they cannot really deny someone the opportunity to present
an application. In the interim, the Commission will have to be prepared to go through the criteria as best they can. While
developing a context statement will give the Commission their identity, it should not hold them back from going through the
checklist to review applications now.
Councilmember Plunkett emphasized that the Commission does not have to make a decision on the application at the next
meeting. They can hold the public meeting, review the information that is provided, and then come back at another meeting
to discuss the application and make a decision. He did not feel the Commission should feel pressure to make a quick
decision just because there is an application on the table.
Chair Marmion again expressed his desire that the Commission first review an application that has very little controversy so
that they can work out the procedural issues before they consider the church application. He said his understanding is that in
order to place a property on the register, an ordinance would have to be approved by the City Council. It would be helpful to
iron out the procedures for submitting these types of ordinances to the City Council for consideration. Councilmember
Plunkett agreed with Chair Marmion's concern, but he questioned if the Commission has the discretion of choosing not to
make a decision on an application because it is uncomfortable. Chair Marmion said that while the Commission does not have
the discretion of preventing an application from being considered, they could table an application until a future date.
Councilmember Plunkett said he does not believe it would be possible for the Commission to table an application based on
the premise that it is uncomfortable. Ms. Campbell agreed that this would not be appropriate.
Chair Marmion said his concern in reviewing the application has nothing to do with comfort. He does not feel the
Commission has a proven process for reviewing applications. He questioned how the Commission can know that their
review process will work before they commit an applicant to proceed. Commissioner Waite agreed with Chair Marmion's
concern. However, if staff feels comfortable that they can guide the Commission through the process, the Commission has
an obligation to consider the application. They will get better at reviewing applications as they have practice. Ms. Campbell
said the concern that not all of the administrative bugs have been worked out of the review process is valid. She said she
would like to discuss the issue with Mr. Chave to determine what would be the best advice to address the Commission's
uneasiness. She said she would provide feedback on this issue as soon as possible.
Commissioner Kindness suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate to have a mock trial to test the review procedure. It
would be helpful for the Commission to spend a half hour reviewing the step-by-step procedure of what they will do when
they actually review an application. Chair Marmion agreed that this would be a good idea, and he asked Ms. Campbell to
discuss the idea with staff.
The Commission briefly discussed that the criteria for determining designation is found in Chapter 20.45.010 of the Edmonds
Community Development Code. Chair Marmion read the eleven criteria that are identified in this chapter. He summarized
that subjects of an application for the historic register must be significantly associated with Edmonds history, have integrity,
be at least 50 years old, and then meet one of the eleven listed criteria.
Councilmember Plunkett said he does not disagree that it would be helpful for the Commission to consider a mock
application as training. However, the criteria is available and the Commission and City staff should focus on the criteria
provided in ECDC 20.45.010 as they review each application. The burden is on the applicant to show that their application
can meet the criteria. If the applicant meets this burden, the Commission would have very little choice other than to approve
the application.
The Commission concurred that staff should provide recommendations related to review procedures. Otherwise, if the
application is completed and ready for the Commission's review, the Commission could consider the application at their next
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
August 14, 2003 Page 3
meeting. If the issue comes before the Commission at the next meeting, a staff recommendation will be provided at least a
week prior to the meeting.
Rob Chave reported that the City Attorney has advised that the hearings would not be quasi-judicial, but would require City
Council approval of an ordinance before the zoning notation for a subject property could be changed.
7. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
a. Administrative Subcommittee Report
Councilmember Plunkett advised that the Administrative Subcommittee was tasked with preparing the final draft of a grant
application to the Hotel/Motel Taxing Authority. This application must be submitted by the end of the month. He reported
that he completed the preliminary application, and Commissioner LeWarne prepared the final draft and will make the
presentation to the Taxing Authority. Ms. Campbell said she has a copy of the final draft of the grant application, but she did
not get a chance to review it carefully. However, she did not see any glaring problems with the application.
Councilmember Plunkett said the Administrative Subcommittee is seeking Commission authority to put the grant application
in final form and make official application for the grant funding.
Commissioner LeWarne said he completed the fill -in -the -blanks standard form. He asked that staff review the form to make
sure all of the information is correct. He briefly reviewed the information that was provided on the form and suggested that a
mock up of the proposed brochure be submitted along with the grant application.
The Commission discussed a possible date for starting the brochure. Councilmember Plunkett noted that because the
Commission must raise the initial $800, they probably would not be able to start the brochure project until at least January 1,
2004. Commissioner LeWarne noted that the grant funding would have to be expended in 2004. The Commission agreed
that the start date for the project should be January 1, 2004 and the completion date should be April 15, 2004.
The Commission discussed the projected cost of the brochure and the grant application amount. Commissioner Arnold said
he calculated the proposed cost of the brochure by reviewing two recent projects he completed that are similar. He said his
estimate is assuming that one of the Commissioners would actually write the copy. It was noted that the Hotel/Motel Taxing
Authority would not fund the entire program. In fact, they may not even fund the amount identified in the application. The
Commission and City would have to come up with the remainder of the funding.
Commissioner Arnold suggested that the project evaluation be modified to make it stronger in terms of attracting overnight
visitors to the Edmonds area. He said one of the things that attract visitors to the Edmonds area is its unique environment,
and this is influenced by the fact that they do have a history. The Commission agreed that the language in this section of the
application should be changed as follows: The brochure will demonstrate Edmonds' unique historic and cultural
environment, which in turn will stimulate increased visitor count."
Commissioner Arnold said that in regard to brochure distribution, they should plan on having copies available to any of the
hotels/motels. The cost of printing additional copies is minimal. Councilmember Plunkett suggested that perhaps copies of
the brochure should be made available on the ferry. Commissioner Kindness suggested that brochures should be available at
the Seattle/King County Convention and Visitors Bureau.
Commissioner Arnold said his understanding is that the hotel/motel tax is collected from hotels and motels that are located
within the City of Edmonds only. The County also has a separate Hotel/Motel Taxing Authority. Commissioner Waite
clarified that the Commission can only tap into the hotel/motel taxes that are generated within the Edmonds community.
The Commission agreed that the application should indicate that the brochures would be distributed to hotels and motels, as
well. It was noted that the distribution of the brochures would not be limited to the specific locations identified on the grant
application. The locations identified are intended to serve as examples.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
August 14, 2003 Page 4
The Commission authorized Commissioner LeWarne to complete the final draft of the grant application and submit it as soon
as possible. The agreed that they do not need to review the draft language again before the application is submitted.
b. Communications Subcommittee Report
Commissioner Arnold referred the Commission to the communications plan that was discussed at a previous meeting. He
recalled that the Commission identified their target audiences and discussed what they want each to do. He said the
Commission identified two primary target markets. First is the target market of owners, and the Commission's goal is to get
owners who will register their properties. This will require the Commission to do some kind of press document, etc. that will
encourage this target group to identify themselves. Once the target group is identified, the Commission will need to provide
more information. The proposed brochure could become a part of that information. When citizens ask for additional
information, he suggested that the Commission forward a copy of the proposed brochure, along with a cover letter inviting
them to a workshop that would be held periodically by the Commission. This would allow the Commission an opportunity to
talk face-to-face with these people. After the workshop, the Commission could invite the citizens to attend a "closing
meeting" at which time the Commission could help them fill out the paperwork, etc. that is necessary in order to register a
property. Commissioner Arnold said another approach would be for the Commission to go out and try to sell people on the
idea of historic preservation. One way to do this is to distribute the proposed brochure to get people excited about the
concept.
Commissioner Arnold recalled that another target audience identified by the Commission was the residents and community
leaders. The Commission discussed that they would like the residents and community leaders to contact the City Council
with a letter, etc. telling them that they support historic preservation. The brochure could also be provided to individuals
within this target market to help them gain a clear understanding of the Commission and historic preservation.
Commissioner Arnold referred to the brochure outline that was provided to the Commissioners prior to the meeting. He said
the outline is critical, and it is important that the Commission stay focused on the brochure objectives. He reminded the
Commission that the overall objective of the brochure is to support the registering of historical properties and other
preservation activities of the preservation Commission. If the brochure does a good job of getting people to register their
properties, it would provide a great value to tourism in Edmonds because it will help maintain the charm of the City.
Commissioner Arnold reviewed that the brochure could be used as follows:
• Sent in a packet to owners of historic structures who request information.
• Sent in a packet to Edmonds Residents who request information.
• Used as a collateral piece by members of the Commission or others who are calling community leaders or
others.
• Used as a pamphlet to be left on counters to build a pro -active interest in historic preservation.
Commissioner Arnold said the cover of the brochure must be something that will catch the interest of the target audiences.
The back of the brochure could be designed to be a self -mailer as well as provide contact information. On the inside flap,
information could be provided to get the reader excited about why preservation is a good thing. It is important to clearly
describe the value of historic preservation to the community, and this section could provide pictures of historic structures in
Edmonds that have been lost. The objective for the inside of the brochure is to call people to action. Examples of what has
been lost and what might be lost could also be provided in this section. It is also important to explain the pros and cons of
historic designation. Before they can complete this section of the brochure, the Commission needs to identify programs such
as plaques, property tax incentives, etc. that will get people fired up.
Commissioner Arnold asked that the Commission provide feedback on the proposed brochure.
The Commission discussed how the proposed brochure relates to the grant application. Councilmember Plunkett said that
two months ago he asked the Commission if they wanted to apply for the grant. He cautioned, at that time, that if they did
apply for the grant, they would have to tweak their mission a bit. The Commission indicated that they wanted to move
forward with the grant application. He said he is not interested in rediscussing the issue. A decision was made to tweak their
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
August 14, 2003 Page 5
mission a little bit to enable them to apply for the grant. The Commission must now either accept the tweaking and try to
obtain the grant as previously discussed, or do two completely different brochures.
Commissioner Arnold recalled that the Commission previously agreed that they would do two versions of the brochure.
Therefore, they need to come up with proposals for both versions. The brochure (Brochure B) created with the grant funding
would provide a walking tour of the historic structures in the City rather than a call to action. Next, he referred to the draft
brochure proposal he provided prior to the meeting (Brochure A) and said that if the brochure is going to convince somebody
that they should come to a meeting to register their property, they need to be able to identify the benefits of doing so, such as
incentives.
Councilmember Plunkett said the Incentives Subcommittee is working very hard on the incentives program, but they won't
have anything additional to provide in the near future, since an incentives program would require code changes. Chair
Marmion noted that the brochure would not be prepared for printing until February. Perhaps this information could be
available by that time. Councilmember Plunkett said he would doubt that code changes could be implemented by January or
February. Therefore, there might not be a significant incentive program to describe in the brochure. He questioned whether
they want to print the brochure anyway, without this information.
Commissioner Waite suggested that the proposed brochure could peddle the positive aspects of historic preservation, and also
indicate that the Commission is working on other types of incentive programs. Councilmember Plunkett agreed that the
brochure could be used to communicate historic preservation to the community. It could invite the citizens to attend future
workshops to find out more information.
The Commission agreed that they should proceed to design a brochure that could be created using grant money to promote
historic preservation from a tourism standpoint. The Communications Committee could then move forward with a brochure
to provide more significant historic preservation information.
Commissioner Arnold referred to two videotapes depicting the history of Edmonds. One was put together by an Eagle Scout
and the other by two former Mayors of Edmonds. A third videotape is available titled "Early Edmonds Historical Houses."
He said his assumption is that there is more information of this type available through the library, museum, etc.
Commissioner Arnold said the Communications Subcommittee researched the option of including Historic Preservation
Commission information on the Government Access Channel 21. This channel is managed by the City of Edmonds, and a
committee is in charge of the content. Anything concerning the City government can be aired on the channel. This can
include announcements, short content or a video. The City Clerk is the person the Commission would contact to put
something on the channel.
Councilmember Plunkett suggested that the Commission encourage the Communications Subcommittee to come back with a
plan at the next meeting for using of the Government Access Channel 21. Commissioner Kindness noted that the
Commission meetings are already advertised on Channel 21. The Communications Subcommittee agreed to come back with
a plan for using the public access channel as well as a proposal for the other brochure that may be funded with grant money.
Chair Marmion announced that the Historic Preservation Commission's web site is up and running now. He inquired if the
Commissioners would like to include their individual e-mail addresses as a link to the web site. The Commissioners agreed
this would be appropriate.
Chair Marmion encouraged the Commissioners to provide their comments as to what information should be added to the web
site. Commissioner Arnold suggested that they use the web site as the central depository for all of their marketing and
communications. The more they can get on the site in one central place, the easier it will be for people to access the
necessary historic preservation information. He suggested that the web site should include a list of the buildings that have
already been registered on the State and National Historic Registers.
Commissioner Kindness suggested that the web site should provide a historic preservation resource list for the public to
access.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
August 14, 2003 Page 6
Councilmember Plunkett said that sooner or later the Commission should to put together a power point presentation for the
public workshops. Perhaps as the Communications Subcommittee works through the development of the web site, they
should keep the power point presentation in mind. If the power point presentation is available on the web site, an owner of
historic property would be able to review the presentation without attending the workshop.
Ms. Campbell suggested that the Commissioners stop by the administrative office and have their picture taken with the
digital camera so that it can be placed on the web site, as well.
C. Historic Register Subcommittee Report
Chair Marmion said the Historic Register Subcommittee is working to clean up the windshield survey. They would like to
make this survey more accessible to the Commissioners.
Chair Marmion said he is working on the procedures for reviewing properties for the historic register. He should have this
information out to the Commission in a few weeks. But this will require that he review the ordinance and pull out the
procedural policies.
Chair Marmion said he would work with Mr. Chave to put together the next phase of the grant process so that the
Commission will have a clear understanding of what they want to consider for possible grant funding. It is important to
identify grant resources as soon as possible.
d. Incentives Subcommittee Report
Chair Marmion referred the Commission to the newspaper clipping staff provided regarding the huge tax savings that is being
offered by a City in Arizona. People are going nuts trying to get on the register there because of the tax incentive. He
suggested that the Commission should explore this option, too.
Commissioner Waite said he has been trying to contact Julie Koler to see how King County has set up their tax incentive
program, but she is out of town. Commissioner LeWarne said he would send her e-mail address to Commissioner Waite.
Commissioner Waite said he has been researching possible codes the Commission may want to recommend the City
incorporate to encourage historic preservation, such as the Washington State Historic Building Code. The Guideline for
Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings is also a good document.
Councilmember Plunkett summarized that a set of rehabilitation codes for the rehabilitation of historic structures has been
created, and the Incentive Subcommittee would like the Commission's permission to forward these codes to the City Council
with a request that they send the document to the Planning Board for consideration and, hopefully, a recommendation to the
City Council for adoption.
Chair Marmion said it was his understanding that rehabilitation codes had already been incorporated into the City's code by
reference in the ordinance. Commissioner Waite clarified that the document provides a list of building codes to guide a
building owner who wants to rehabilitate a historic structure. The current codes would somewhat limit the rehabilitation.
Councilmember Plunkett said he wrote a letter to Senator Honeyford, who sits on the Preservation Commission of the State
Legislature, inquiring if Washington State incorporates the HUD Rehabilitation Codes. His answer was that they do not.
Because the State does not have HUD Rehabilitation Codes, he suggested that the City should consider incorporating them
into their code. Then a person rehabilitating a historic structure would be required to rehabilitate up to rehabilitation codes
rather than existing codes. The Incentives Subcommittee is seeking permission from the Commission to approach the City
Council with this request.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
August 14, 2003 Page 7
Chair Marmion noted that the meeting time had expired. He noted that Ms. Campbell had to leave the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
He questioned if the Commission could continue the meeting without a staff member present. Ms. Campbell said her only
concern is that in order for the minutes to be recorded, a staff member must be present.
Chair Marmion suggested that the Commission move their meeting time up a half hour to avoid these situations in the future.
Ms. Campbell suggested that it may be more useful to assign each item on the agenda a certain amount of time rather than
talking excessively about just one or two of the items. Councilmember Plunkett expressed his opinion that the Commission
should be able to get through their meeting in the time allotted if they stick to the agenda.
Commissioner Waite said there are several documents that the Incentives Subcommittee would like the Planning Board and
City Council to consider making part of the development code. Chair Marmion noted that the current code requires the
Commission to review any changes to the property to the standards identified in the ordinance. He inquired if the Incentives
Subcommittee is proposing that the standards be changed. Commissioner Waite answered that those standards would not be
changed. The standards the Incentives Subcommittee is referring to are related to building codes. He explained that in
addition to meeting the rehabilitation standards already identified in the ordinance, a property owner would also have to meet
the current building codes, which are insufficient and do not provide an incentive to the property owner. Other municipalities
extensively use the building codes that are written specifically for historic structures. He emphasized that a property owner
would only be able to use the rehabilitation building code if the historic structure is recognized by a public entity. These
codes are intended to benefit the owner of a historic structure while not sacrificing the health, safety and welfare of the
public.
Commissioner Marmion expressed his concern that the code document being brought forth by the Incentives Subcommittee
could be in conflict with the standards that are already identified in the ordinance. Commissioner Waite briefly explained
how the two documents are different. Commissioner Arnold suggested that the Planning Board would be charged with the
responsibility of reviewing the code document to make sure it is consistent with the codes that already exist. Councilmember
Plunkett suggested that it would likely take at least a year for the City to complete their review and adopt the new code
standards. However, if they are adopted, the Commission would then have a significant incentive to offer owners of historic
properties. Under the existing codes, it is no longer viable to rehabilitate many of the historic structures.
COMMISSIONER LEWARNE MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZE THE INCENTIVES
SUBCOMMITTEE TO GO BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A REQUEST THAT REHABILITATION CODES BE
FORWARDED TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR THEIR REVIEW AND STUDY. COMMISSIONER KINDNESS
SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business scheduled on the agenda.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
August 14, 2003 Page 8
9. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Ms. Campbell recalled that several months ago, the Commission directed the staff to display the Certified Local Government
Certificate on the Second Floor in Development Services. Although Mr. Bowman is okay with that, he voiced his concern
that it really gets pretty rough and busy in that area. She suggested that another option would be to display the document in
the display case that is on the bottom floor of the City Hall. The Commission agreed that would be an ideal location.
10. REVIEW OF NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out that the planning staff is working overtime. The City has cut 25 employees, and he is
not sure the Mayor would give the Commission staff representation for more than the 1'/z hour already allotted. It might be
more incumbent on the Commission to stick to their agenda. The Mayor has been very gracious with staff time for the
Commission already.
Chair Marmion voiced his concern that the Commission only has one time per month to gather in a working meeting.
Commissioner Arnold suggested that maybe they could meet informally after 5:00 p.m. to discuss issues that are non -
legislative. Another option would be for the Commissioners to put in more time in between meetings responding to the
requests for input from other Commissioners. Then they would be prepared to make some decisions at their meetings rather
than having to spend so much time gathering input. The Commission agreed that they should try to respond to fellow
Commissioners' requests for feedback.
11. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Marmion said that as he put together the list of Commission accomplishments over the past year, he was surprised to
find how much they had done. They have put most of the infrastructure in place and are about ready to move to the next
phase.
Chair Marmion said he works for Boeing, and they never follow an agenda. Therefore, he may be the wrong person to try
and structure the Commission meeting.
12. HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEMBER COMMENTS
Commissioner Kindness agreed that the Commission should identify time allotments for each item on the agenda, and then
try to stay within the timeframe identified.
Councilmember Plunkett congratulated the Commission for all they have accomplished. They are moving through the
process fairly quickly.
13. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to address, the Commission adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
August 14, 2003 Page 9