Redmond Planning Commission reviews draft community design standards, seeks clarifications on resilience, typologies and alternatives

Redmond Planning Commission Chair Weston convened a study session Feb. 26, 2025, on the draft Community Design Standards that will form part of the city’s Redmond 2050 code update and asked staff to collect commissioners’ questions in an issues matrix ahead of a tentative public hearing March 26.

The package under review includes introductory text, context‑sensitive design standards, and residential standards that staff said are being reorganized into a new Chapter 2,158. Becky Fry, principal planner, told commissioners, “we are kicking off the last major phase of Redmond ’20 fifty’s deep diving.” Staff said the draft consolidates multiple, citywide design rules into a single chapter organized by building form and topology rather than by place-based design centers; the town‑center design rules are being held temporarily because those areas are in active project review.

Why it matters: The new chapter is intended to implement policies in Redmond 2050 and the city’s comprehensive plan by clarifying purpose statements, streamlining standards across downtown, Marymoor and neighborhood areas, and giving applicants a clearer path for alternative design compliance. Staff told commissioners the alternative compliance pathway will require proposals to “meet or exceed the purpose for the respective design aspect.” That determination will rely on the purpose statements at the start of each design element.

What staff presented and what changed

Staff described three building typologies in the draft and how standards apply differently by type: “mass timber,” which uses engineered or solid wood load‑bearing structure and which staff said the draft intends to incentivize; “towers,” defined as buildings over 85 feet that may include podiums; and a “small building alternative,” intended as a simpler box‑form for smaller lots. Staff said small‑building alternatives would be limited to 45 or 60 feet depending on zoning and would not be eligible for height incentives. The draft requires at least 15% of a small building’s façade be ornamentation—material texture, art, vegetation or similar—as an alternative to deep articulations.

Context‑sensitive design in the draft requires new development to relate physically and visually to adjacent open spaces, trails, the Sammamish River and nearby historic buildings while remaining distinctive; staff emphasized the requirement both to reference nearby design elements and to avoid creating a false sense of history near designated landmarks. The draft also includes a short section on high‑traffic corridors that, staff said, addresses screening, orientation and circulation and cross‑references other code sections dealing with noise and landscaping.

Public comment and community suggestions

David Morton of Redmond (zip 98053) addressed the commission during public comment on agenda Item 5. Morton said he “likes the comprehensive approach to reorganizing the design standards with a focus on equity, inclusion, sustainability, and resiliency.” He urged stronger sustainability requirements, cautioned that the small‑building alternative not create loopholes that reduce design quality, asked for expanded privacy standards for higher‑density residential development, and recommended adding bird‑friendly design guidance to reduce collisions.

Commissioner questions and staff responses

Commissioners asked for clarifications and suggested edits across several topics: distinguishing resilience from sustainability (Commissioner Aparna), adding a fifth typology for neighborhood residential to cover typical single‑family/low‑rise areas, and clearer terminology for review roles (for example, consistently using “review authority” or “decision maker” where sign‑offs are required). Staff agreed to add items to the issues matrix and said they will respond before returning to the commission.

On alternative design compliance, staff described the pathway as a tool for flexibility: it allows applicants to propose innovative or newer building techniques—staff cited mass timber as an example—but requires the proposal to meet or exceed the written purpose statements. Commissioners pressed staff about the long‑term effect of approvals on local context—whether successive, approved alternatives could cumulatively change the neighborhood character—and staff said that policy review and periodic comprehensive plan updates provide a forum to reassess outcomes if needed.

Landmark, iconic and unique architecture

Commissioners asked whether very distinctive or “iconic” projects would have a path under the new process. Staff said such proposals would be reviewed by staff initially; if a project requires expertise beyond staff capacity, the code includes a provision to bring in an external design professional. The draft also reduces the former Design Review Board role; staff said one designated landmark commissioner will coordinate with the King County Historic Preservation Commission for landmark matters, but truly “iconic” modern proposals would follow the development review path with possible expert assistance.

Timing and next steps

Staff asked commissioners to submit detailed comments into the issues matrix so items can be resolved at subsequent meetings. The timeline presented to the commission calls for starting a public hearing March 26 (staff said the hearing may extend into a following meeting), council review in May and council adoption in June with a single ordinance to adopt the consolidated code packages and a common effective date.

Votes at a glance

During the meeting the commission took three routine votes recorded on the transcript. The roll call at the start of the meeting showed six commissioners present (Aparna; Coleman; Copley; Gagne; Vice Chair Woodyer; Chair Weston) and Commissioner Van Nyman excused. The commission approved the meeting agenda and the Feb. 12, 2025 minutes and later voted to adjourn. Each recorded vote on the agenda, minutes and adjournment passed with the recorded votes in favor; the transcript records “Aye” from the commissioners and unanimous outcomes in each case.

What to watch for

Staff said the design‑standards package is posted on the city’s 2025 code updates web page and that staff will return with revised text and answers to the issues matrix comments at upcoming study sessions. The commission’s next substantive hearing on this package is tentatively scheduled March 26, 2025.