Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Review Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board clears design-review draft for public hearing; staff to refine objective standards
Summary
The board reviewed a revised design-review code and asked staff for technical clarifications and material prohibitions; members agreed the document is close and asked staff to finalize objective standards, examples of unacceptable materials, and permit validity language before the public hearing next week.
The Edmonds Planning Board reviewed a revised design-review code at the same special meeting and told staff the draft is close to ready for public hearing, but asked for a few targeted clarifications: objective measurable standards for each criterion, clearer permitted/prohibited exterior materials, guidance on canopy and downspout materials, and explicit alignment of design-review validity with building‑permit timelines.
Brad (planning staff) said the updated code consolidates older district-based standards into a single, measurable chapter and removes redundancies. He told the board the changes were intended to streamline administrative review and reduce multiple repetitive staff reports. He noted that design standards carried forward from previous chapters were reworded to ensure that each standard has a measurable ‘‘must’’ or an objectively verifiable metric.
Board reviewers asked staff to: - Provide a short list of prohibited facade materials (examples discussed: vinyl siding, low-end veneered aluminum, T1-11 panels) and a matching list of preferred, durable materials; - Clarify canopy materials and drainage expectations so roof drainage and canopy runoff are handled by the project stormwater system where feasible; - Make the permit-validity language unambiguous: design approval should remain valid while a corresponding building permit is active; staff confirmed that will be clarified in the next draft.
Board member Todd and others who reviewed the draft earlier offered architect-level edits; the board requested staff circulate a revised draft quickly so the board and interested developers can review ahead of the scheduled public hearing. Brad said he will provide a clean recommended draft and a staff report for the hearing.
The board did not take a formal vote on the design-review chapter at this meeting but directed staff to incorporate requested edits and to present a final recommendation at the public hearing next week.
