Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff outline overhaul of Edmonds design-review rules to comply with state law
Summary
City planning staff presented a draft rewrite of the city's design-review code to comply with Washington state law (HB 1293) and to consolidate multiple, partly redundant design-review processes. The Planning Board discussed changes to process, glazing and garage rules, and the role of the Architectural Design Board in departures.
Edmonds planning staff presented a consolidated draft of the city's design-review rules and asked the Citizens Planning Board for early feedback, saying the rewrite is intended to comply with state law and reduce processing time for development permits.
Brad Shipley, identified in the meeting as planning staff, told the board that state lawmakers passed HB 1293 in 2023 and that Edmonds must make standards "clear and objective and focused on exterior design only." Shipley said the city will eliminate the two-stage district-based design-review process and consolidate standards into an administrative (staff) review plus an advisory role for the Architectural Design Board (ADB) where applicants seek a departure from objective standards. "We're gonna have to, eliminate the 2 stage design review process," Shipley said during his presentation.
The draft moves standards that were scattered across zoning chapters and the comprehensive plan into a single design-review chapter (20.10 in the draft packet). Shipley said the changes aim to make permitting faster and more predictable for applicants while keeping design criteria measurable: frontages oriented to the street or to defined public/open spaces, requirements for transparency and doors on primary facades, articulation to break up large building masses, and material-quality language that favors durable facade materials over color alone.
Board members pressed staff on several points. Commissioner Lee asked whether the city could send the proposed criteria to the state Department of Commerce for an objectivity check; Shipley said the city will send the draft to Commerce once a version is ready. Commissioner John (surname not stated) noted a potential conflict between glazing percentages and structural or seismic requirements: downtown glazing is retained at a 75% transparency target in the draft, and Shipley said that standard will remain for the BD downtown zone but that other districts would use much lower transparency requirements (he suggested 25—60% in other zones) and said staff would return with data on what existing buildings currently achieve.
Other technical standards discussed: allowances for balconies to encroach modestly into setbacks to encourage usable outdoor space; a five-foot garage setback behind the front facade and minimum 18-foot garage depth to avoid vehicles obstructing sidewalks; limits on visible rooftop mechanical equipment with requirements for screening; and landscape standards that emphasize year-round plant material when screening equipment.
Shipley said the ADB would remain as an advisory or review body for departures (instances where an applicant seeks to vary an objective standard), with the primary reviews handled administratively by staff. "ADB reviews projects that request a departure from one or more of the design standards required under the Administrative Design Review process," Shipley explained.
Shipley asked the board for targeted feedback and flagged a short timeline: the draft will return to the Planning Board again before staff sends a refined version for internal review and eventual Council consideration. He told the board he would bring updated language on glazing, façade tables and BC/CG zone clean-ups in the next packet.
The board discussed scheduling and review steps. Members noted the draft contains many provisions adapted from existing Edmonds chapters and from standard urban-design practices, and asked that staff identify items likely to trigger controversy so those could be deferred to a later phase where there's more public engagement.
The board did not take a formal vote on the design-review chapter at the meeting; Shipley said staff will return with a revised draft incorporating comments and additional comparative data on glazing and other items.
Ending: Staff will revise the draft design chapter and return to the Planning Board with a packet showing proposed numeric changes (including an updated glazing percentage and examples of local buildings), and will share the updated draft with the ADB member who offered to review it.
