Lake Stevens staff: 2019 design guidelines largely meet new state standard; minor code tweaks and clearer procedures planned

On May 7, 2025, Lake Stevens planning staff reviewed proposed code and guideline revisions to comply with House Bill 1293, a 2023 law that requires local design standards for exterior building design to be clear and objective and prevents design review from being used to reduce a project’s density, height, bulk or scale.

David Levitan, principal planner, told the Planning Commission that the city’s 2019 update to its design guidelines and the elimination of a volunteer design review board left Lake Stevens in a relatively strong position. "If you look through [the 2019 guidelines],... I would consider almost all of that... generally compliant with 12‑93," Levitan said, adding that staff proposes limited code changes to clarify definitions, explicitly state that design review is an associated land‑use determination processed concurrently with permits, and remove subjective terms from the development code.

What the changes would do: Staff identified a short list of edits (included as tracked changes in the packet) and recommended clarifications including a definition of design review focused on exterior building design, an explicit requirement that design review proceed concurrently with land‑use applications, and a clarification that no more than one public meeting may be required. The changes, staff said, are intended to provide developers clearer, predictable routes to approval while meeting the law’s prohibition on using design review to limit density or height.

Commission reaction was mixed but constructive. Commissioner Packard said the guidelines are detailed and might already be too prescriptive in places; "it's too prescriptive as far as I would see... is that because we feel like that level of detail is needed to be compliant with the law, or because we're trying to protect ourselves as a city?" Commissioner Packard asked. Planning Manager Christy Schmidt, who helped draft the guidelines, explained the detailed, menu‑style approach was deliberate to give applicants clear options and reduce subjectivity: "...it was a conscious attempt... to provide enough level of detail and prescriptive standards that gave an applicant a menu of options."

Other discussion items and clarifications included: - Applicability: Staff said design review currently applies citywide to multifamily residential, civic/institutional, commercial and industrial projects but not to single‑family residential; Commissioner Morton asked for confirmation that multifamily is included. - Public meetings: Under HB 1293 staff recommended clarifying that jurisdictions may not require more than one public meeting for design review; city practice already makes design review a Type 1 administrative review with an optional public meeting that is rarely requested. - Exceptions process: The guidelines already contain an exceptions/alternatives chapter. Levitan and Christy Schmidt confirmed applicants can propose alternative design solutions and staff can evaluate them against clear standards rather than require a legislative amendment.

Next steps: Staff will refine specific code language, remove or soften provisions identified by commissioners as overly prescriptive (for example very specific roof‑pitch language), and bring a consolidated process‑code package back to the commission for review. No changes were adopted at the May 7 meeting; the item is part of the broader process‑code update work program that staff expects to complete by year‑end to align with other 2024 comprehensive‑plan implementation tasks.