Bothell landmark board packet outlines draft amendments to historic preservation code

What the records say

The agenda packet for the Oct. 14 Landmark Preservation Board meeting schedules a study session on suggested amendments to Bothell Municipal Code Title 22, the city's landmark preservation code. No action is required; staff are seeking the Board's review and comments on the draft ¹. Title 22 provides the framework for identifying, designating, and protecting historic and cultural resources, outlines the Board's role, and sets the process for designating and reviewing changes to historic properties ¹. Staff say the code has been amended over time and could be clearer, better organized, and easier to use ¹. The update uses the state Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation's model ordinance as a baseline ¹. Suggested changes include updating definitions, moving the Board's governance provisions from Title 22 to Title 2 where other city boards are codified, deleting references to a 'Historical District' because Bothell has none and no plans to create one, and removing or altering rules that restricted use, alteration, or demolition of private property not on the city's historic register but possibly 40 years or older ¹. Staff say those restrictions were deemed unconstitutional under RCW 35.21.995 after consultation with the city attorney; that statute requires an owner's written consent when landmark designation would restrict use, alteration, or demolition, subject to exceptions ¹. Staff say feedback will be considered as the draft is refined before further review by the Planning Commission and City Council ¹. The work supports the Cultural and Historic Resources Element of the 2024 Imagine Bothell Comprehensive Plan and was included in Community Development's 2026 workplan, with earlier introductory discussions with Council in March, the Board in June, and the Planning Commission in July 2026 ¹.

• The Oct. 14 agenda packet schedules a Landmark Preservation Board study session on draft amendments to BMC Title 22; no action is required and staff are seeking the Board's feedback ¹.
• Suggested changes touch definitions (22.08), board review (22.28.050), board membership provisions (2.53.919), and a new 'Commission Staff' section (2.53.050) modeled on the state DAHP model ordinance ¹.
• Staff propose moving Chapter 22.12 board governance to Title 2.53, where other city boards and commissions are codified, and removing 'Historical District' references because Bothell has none and no plans for one ¹.
• After city attorney consultation, staff deemed unconstitutional code restricting use, alteration, or demolition of private property not on the historic register but possibly 40 years or older under RCW 35.21.995; affected BMC 22.28.060(C) provisions were deleted or altered ¹.
• Earlier feedback: Council called the work early and exploratory; the Planning Commission requested redline comparisons and raised questions about the 50-year threshold, preservation costs, and housing and development impacts; the Board emphasized meaningful involvement and underfunding concerns; the Bothell Historical Museum discussed board terms, vacancies, and community involvement ¹.
• No direct fiscal impacts are identified; staff time is covered under the existing budget ¹.

Why it matters

Title 22 is the city's framework for identifying, designating, and protecting historic and cultural resources, and it sets the Landmark Preservation Board's role in reviewing changes to historic properties ¹. The packet says Board members raised concerns about reducing preservation review, particularly in the Downtown Special Review Area, and about ensuring historic resources are considered during redevelopment ¹. Planning Commission feedback asked how preservation review interacts with housing, development timelines, and preservation costs ¹. Council described the work as early and exploratory, so the study session is a chance to follow the proposed direction before the draft advances to further review by the Planning Commission and City Council ¹.

What changed / what's next

• Staff plan to continue drafting amendments and return for study sessions with City Council, the Planning Commission, and the Landmark Preservation Board; no final adoption timeline is given ¹.
• Staff are also separately updating the citywide inventory of historic properties ¹.
• The supplied packet is pre-meeting material and does not report the Board's actual comments from the Oct. 14 meeting.
• The available records do not establish the meeting's outcome.