Planning Commission hears public comment and detailed staff changes to draft design standards; no final recommendation

On April 9, 2025 the Redmond Planning Commission held a public hearing on draft design standards (Chapter 21.58) included in Part 3 of the 2025 code update package. Staff presented substantial edits made in response to public and commission comments and invited testimony; commissioners discussed technical details and directed staff to incorporate the evening’s discussion into a revised staff report for the commission’s next meeting.

Becky Frey and other planning staff summarized the package and walked commissioners through major edits in draft 3: relocation of screening requirements for garbage and recycling enclosures, added and clarified definitions, reworked step‑back provisions and exemptions (including exemptions where a wide right-of-way, linear open space or steep topography reduce the step‑back purpose), changes to interior facade modulation and roofline modulation (minimum modulation reduced to 5 feet from larger earlier figures), restored an illustration and certain text lines inadvertently deleted in earlier drafts, and clarified alternative design compliance (ADC) pathways and cross‑references to existing variance and height flexibility procedures. Staff also noted a new Table of Applicability and an Appendix 12 intended to help applicants navigate mandatory standards and incentives.

David Morton, a Redmond resident, urged objective and measurable design standards, flexibility for semi‑private open spaces such as podium courtyards and rooftop gardens, and stronger base requirements for green infrastructure. Morton praised the draft’s shift toward measurable standards and asked the commission to consider making some green infrastructure features mandatory rather than optional incentives.

Commissioners probed limits on ADC use and whether the code would allow truly "iconic" or landmark buildings. Staff said the draft sets outcome‑based purpose statements rather than prescriptive methods; there is no numeric cap on ADCs in the current text, and very unique projects can pursue a development agreement or use ADC pathways while meeting purpose statements. Staff and commissioners agreed the issue of incentivizing or defining iconic buildings merits further work and can be brought back as a separate follow‑up project; the commission asked that this discussion and the desire to monitor ADC outcomes be noted in the issues matrix and the staff report.

The commission closed the verbal and written portion of the public hearing and directed staff to update the issues matrix, incorporate the meeting’s discussion into the staff report, and return with a recommendation at the next meeting. No code adoption occurred at this hearing; the matter will return to the commission for a recommendation to council.