Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landmarks Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates role of Landmark Preservation Board as staff begins Title 22 update
Summary
At a March 10 study session, Bothell staff outlined a proposed update to Title 22 (landmark preservation code) and asked whether the city should focus on administrative cleanup or broader changes to the Landmark Preservation Board's role; public comment and council members raised concerns about the board's resources, quorum and volunteer expectations.
Bothell staff introduced a study session on updating Municipal Code Title 22 (Landmark Preservation) during the March 10 City Council meeting and asked for council direction on scope and roles.
Jacqueline (planning staff) said the update will aim to improve clarity, streamline procedures, and align the code with state law and best practices. Staff proposed examining whether some project‑level reviews could be moved to administrative review under clear standards, and whether the Landmark Preservation Board (LPB) should retain the same mix of advisory and project‑level decision functions.
Public comment from Ray Thomas, a long‑time member of the Landmarks Preservation Board, urged the council not to narrow the scope of revisions and said the board lacks funding, public outreach and sufficient liaison work with other agencies: "We need money. We need people," Thomas said during public comment.
Council discussion focused on several recurring themes: LPB quorum and volunteer fatigue (staff noted recent cancellations for lack of quorum), whether the board's work is mainly project review or broader storytelling and policy guidance, opportunities to better integrate the board's inventory work with other departments, and whether some volunteer interests might be better channeled to partner nonprofits such as the historical society or a Friends organization.
Several council members suggested staff should consult the Landmark Preservation Board early in the process and return with draft code amendments after the board and Planning Commission have had a chance to weigh in. Council asked staff to consider administrative review thresholds that would avoid redundant reviews (for example, aligning demolition review and SR process steps) and to bring back a proposed scope and schedule.
No code changes were proposed for adoption at the March 10 meeting. Staff said they are updating the city's historic inventory in parallel and will prepare draft amendments and public materials for later hearings.
