Lake Stevens planners propose code edits to make design review more objective under new state law

At its Aug. 4 meeting, the Lake Stevens Planning Commission heard a staff presentation on proposed amendments to the Lake Stevens Municipal Code intended to implement recent state legislation, including House Bill 1293, by making design-review criteria objective and integrating design review with the overall development-review process.

The revisions aim to remove subjective words such as "encourage" or "may" and replace them with clearer, measurable standards so applicants can know in advance whether a design meets the city's rules. "This is for HB 1293, the design review process. It's removing subjective language from the existing design review criteria," said Amber Rookenshire, the city's new planner presenting the item.

Why it matters: the change will affect new commercial, industrial, multifamily, civic and institutional structures that are already subject to the city's design guidelines. Commissioners emphasized the potential local effects on project feasibility and on state-driven goals for housing production.

Staff said HB 1293 requires that design review include "one or more guidelines, standards, criteria that can be easily interpreted to design whether design is permitted," and that jurisdictions may not require more than one public hearing and should conduct design review concurrently or logically integrated with the broader development review. The design guidelines were adopted in 2019 via Ordinance 1068 and are referenced in Lake Stevens Municipal Code section 14.16.050.

Planning Director Russ Wright and Planning Manager Christy Schmidt told the commission the staff approach is to produce a chapter-by-chapter matrix showing proposed word changes, then return a redlined code amendment for commission review before forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. Wright said staff plans a council work session in early October and a council public hearing in mid-to-late October.

Commissioners pressed staff on protecting flexibility and avoiding unintended consequences. "The title of this document is revised or is design guidelines. And so we're going through the document and, changing should to shall, may to, to shall. So it's changing this document from design guidelines to design requirements," said Commissioner Morton. "...instead of making things easier to get permitted, which was the intent of the state, now we're actually making it more difficult for developers to make buildings." Commissioner Morton asked staff to preserve the menu-style approach that lets applicants meet a subset of design options rather than a single prescriptive checklist.

Commissioner Connor Davis raised concerns about multifamily affordable housing falling under the same rules as larger commercial projects and asked whether any exemptions or tailored approaches could be considered for affordable or high-density housing. "If single family housing is exempt, is there a possibility of... affording that same exemption to multifamily housing for affordable housing?" Connor Davis asked.

Staff replied that the proposed objective language follows the state law requirements and that single-family homes are already exempt from the city's design-review process. Rookenshire noted design-review applicability remains targeted at commercial, industrial, multifamily and public buildings; she pointed to an existing section in the design guidelines that allows alternative methods and exemptions in limited circumstances. "There are exemptions built within our code and within the design guidelines," Rookenshire said.

Commissioners and staff agreed there is a balance to strike between clear, objective standards that reduce arbitrary decisions and preserving sufficient flexibility so design rules do not create new barriers to development.

Next steps: staff will prepare a revised draft with tracked changes for the commission, then forward a recommendation to City Council for a work session in early October and a public hearing in mid-to-late October. The commission will revisit the matrices and redlines in a future meeting for additional comment before formal action.

Ending: The discussion was a staff-level review; no formal policy change or vote on the code amendments occurred at the Aug. 4 meeting. Commissioners asked for more redlines and clarifying language to ensure that the new, more-objective rules do not unintentionally block feasible development, especially projects intended to provide affordable housing.