Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Architectural Design Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Orting to hold June public hearing after year‑long rewrite of architectural design review guidelines
Summary
City staff and the planning commission recommended revised Architectural Design Review (ADR) guidelines to comply with state law requiring clearer, objective standards, a single public meeting limit and greater predictability in permitting; the planning commission recommended adoption and the council scheduled a June 11 public hearing.
Orting staff and the planning commission are asking the City Council to hold a public hearing on proposed revisions to the city's Architectural Design Review (ADR) guidelines, changes staff say are driven by a 2023 state law and a year of local outreach with businesses and property owners.
Why it matters: Staff said the revised rules replace vague, subjective language with clear, ascertainable criteria intended to shorten the permitting timeline and reduce uncertainty for applicants while preserving Orting's "turn‑of‑the‑century Western and Victorian" character.
What changed: City Administrator/CA Larson told the council the state law requires design regulations to be clear and objective and to avoid standards that would reduce allowable density, height, bulk or scale beyond zoning limits. "There has to be some sort of, you know, easily understandable, measure of success to an applicant moving through the ADR process," Larson said while describing the updates.
The draft revisions add specific, measurable examples under previously subjective phrases (for example, replacing terms such as "desirable transition" or "compatible" with checklist‑style options an applicant can satisfy). The update also: limits ADR to no more than one public meeting; creates an optional, no‑cost voluntary pre‑application review; clarifies exemptions for minor work; removes outdated language attempting to regulate sign content (which staff said conflicts with free‑speech case law); and adds instructions to facilitate concurrent review of permits when applicants choose that route.
Administrative steps and review: Staff issued a SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) and provided state notice; Department of Commerce raised points about concurrent review but ultimately staff said Commerce concurred with the approach after discussion. The planning commission held a public hearing in May, took testimony and recommended council adoption of the draft ordinance (listed in materials as Ordinance 2025‑1145).
Next steps: Council set a public hearing on June 11 and staff asked the council to receive the item for that hearing and consider final action after the hearing. No ordinance adoption occurred tonight.
Speakers quoted or referenced in this article: CA Larson (City Administrator), Planning Commission (public hearing and recommendation), Community Director (outreach), Planning staff.
