The Edmonds City Council discussed proposed updates to the city’s design-review code on June 3, including how the Architectural Design Board (ADB) should participate under new statutory limits on subjective review.

Planning staff said the revised approach centralizes clear objective design standards in zoning chapters and reserves the ADB’s role for limited “off‑ramps” when a developer seeks departures from objective standards. The change responds to recent state guidance restricting multi-step, discretionary design-review processes.

Staff summarized the proposed code changes: prohibiting long blank walls on major frontages; requiring facade articulation and ground-floor differentiation; allowing weather protection (awnings/canopies) to extend into setbacks; limiting garage doors facing primary streets; and requiring concealment of mechanical equipment visible from the street. Staff also proposed expanding the zones covered by objective design standards, principally multifamily (RM) and some commercial corridors.

Council debate focused on the ADB’s future role. Several councilmembers and the mayor urged the ADB be used primarily for policy and neighborhood-level design standards — not as a routine project veto — while others sought guaranteed ADB review for projects in Business District (BD) zones and newly designated centers and hubs. A council amendment to require ADB review of projects located in BD zones or centers and hubs failed on a 3–4 vote.

Why it matters: The design-review approach will shape what new buildings look like across Edmonds. Staff said the goal is to adopt clear, objective standards that staff can administer while giving the ADB opportunities to review significant departures or to advise on area-specific design standards.

Process and next steps: Staff will refine the draft code to remove references that state law now forbids (for example, specifying exterior cladding materials), and to clarify the public‑realm definition for entries. Planning staff noted the ADB’s strongest value may lie in policy-level work to craft neighborhood-specific design standards for future phases of the code update. The council asked staff and the ADB to coordinate on a proposed work plan and to return revised code language for additional review and public comment.

Votes and outcomes: Council defeated an amendment (3–4) that would have required ADB review in BD zones and centers-and-hubs; otherwise the council received the draft for further review.

What was not decided: Final adoption of objective design standards for specific districts; staff will return revised language and additional analysis on ADB role and workload for council consideration.