King County staff brief Snoqualmie commission on landmark program; city staff to draft code amendments

King County's historic preservation staff briefed the Snoqualmie Planning Commission on the county landmarking program and the incentives that accompany designation, and city staff said Snoqualmie's municipal code contains provisions that do not align with the interlocal agreement that brings King County services to the city.

Jennifer Meisner, King County Historic Preservation Officer, and Sarah Steen, landmarks coordinator, told commissioners they provide survey, landmarking, technical assistance, archaeological review and grant programs to participating cities under interlocal agreements. Meisner noted Snoqualmie signed its interlocal agreement in 1994 and that King County maintains a regional historic resource inventory with roughly 5,000 properties countywide and about 100 in Snoqualmie. "We deliver services in really three different program areas: cultural resource identification and protection, environmental compliance, and education and technical assistance," Meisner said.

Steen described recent state law changes and how those affect local designation practice: owner consent is now required for landmark designation in many places, she said, and the King County program emphasizes incentives and technical assistance rather than freezing buildings in time. "We really want the best outcome is when the owner supports the designation," Steen said, and she listed available incentives, including capital grants (capped this year at $100,000) and special-evaluation tax programs.

City staff and commissioners then discussed the municipal code. Andrew Love, city staff, summarized the issue: a 2023 ordinance (No. 1273) altered Chapter 17.35 (Historic Overlay Zones and Landmarks) and in practice changed review paths and severed an explicit connection to King County code referenced in the earlier interlocal framework. Love told the commission the change routed some reviews to a city-established historical design review board (and defaulted review to the Planning Commission when that board was not active) rather than to the Snoqualmie Landmarks Commission that functions through the King County Landmarks Commission plus a special local member. "Given the similarity of these names and the title 'historic' and everything, it has created a lot of confusion over the years," Love said.

Commissioners raised examples of overlapping review areas (downtown historic commercial landmark district, downtown historic overlay, Meadowbrook overlay) and asked staff whether the city should continue to have a separate historical design review board. Staff recommended drafting edits to clarify routing, terminology and which reviews go to the county-led landmarks commission versus Planning Commission or a local review board. Love said staff are preparing draft edits and expect to bring them back for further discussion; depending on scope, revisions could return as soon as June 2.

The presentation highlighted practical implications: if review is not routed through the county/landmarks commission, property owners could lose access to preservation incentives and tax-credit programs that require county-level review. Commissioners and King County representatives urged clarifying terms, filling the city's special-commissioner seat, and making the code's naming and routing consistent with the interlocal agreement and the practical needs of businesses and landmark owners.

No formal code change was adopted at the meeting; staff said they will work with King County preservation staff and local stakeholders to produce specific code edits for Planning Commission consideration.