Planning commission adds downtown color‑palette and design‑review rules to work plan

The Snoqualmie Planning Commission voted on March 3, 2025 to add a review of the city’s downtown color palette and the historic design‑review regulations to its future work plan, after staff described merchant feedback and commissioners raised questions about process and authority.

Mona Davis, senior planner with the Community Development Department, told the commission she has collected comments from downtown business owners who described the current approved palette as “kind of a letdown” and, in her words, a “snore fest.” Davis said she is researching other historic‑district palettes and tracking how many variances have been reviewed in recent years; she told commissioners that pulling statistics from the permit system requires more time.

Davis outlined an implementation issue that commissioners then debated: the municipal code distinguishes among three types of historic design review. Type 1 projects (minor changes such as repainting within an approved palette) are delegated to the historic preservation officer or director for administrative review; the director may approve, set conditions or refer a Type 1 to the design‑review board. Davis said Type 2 requests — such as a change to colors outside the approved palette — can trigger a larger, category‑3 permit process under Title 14.30 that may require a hearing examiner decision and public noticing, a step that can lengthen review and add costs for applicants.

Commissioners and staff debated whether recent code revisions left ambiguity about the planning commission’s role versus the director’s authority, and whether a clearer, publicly available “historic district guidebook” and more explicit references to terms such as “contributing” and “noncontributing” structures would reduce confusion for business owners. Vice Chair Kocher, Commissioner Marziac and others asked that the review clarify when a review is administrative, when it goes to the design‑review board, and what fees and timeframes applicants should expect.

City staff noted several points for follow up: whether the palette should be specified with device‑independent color codes (hexadecimal or Pantone) rather than brand names, whether murals and signage should be treated differently from building paint, and an evaluation of the financial cost to business owners for pursuing variances. Staff told commissioners that they currently do not maintain a single fee for design‑review but track consultant and hearing examiner costs that applicants are expected to reimburse.

After discussion, Chair Andre Tessman moved that the Planning Commission include review of the downtown color palette and the design‑review and historic‑review regulations in its future work plan. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously; all five commissioners voted to add the review to the commission’s work plan. Staff said the commission may return materials and a proposed scope for the review in a future packet and that the commission can make recommendations to the city council for any code changes.

Ending: Commissioners asked staff to assemble clearer guidance for applicants, including examples, fee‑impacts and a timetable for review; staff said it will research code history, fee impacts and whether a consolidated historic‑district guidebook exists to publish for public use.