Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kirkland staff outline plan to comply with state’s HB 1293 on design review; propose administrative review plus limited DRB role for exceptions
Summary
Following the 2023 state law requiring clear‑and‑objective exterior design standards and limiting public review to a single meeting, staff proposed moving bulk/scale rules into objective zoning code (Chapter 92), using staff administrative reviews for most projects and keeping the Design Review Board (DRB) only as a quasi‑judicial body to consider
Kirkland — City staff on Oct. 21 presented an implementation approach for House Bill 1293 (effective July 2023), which requires local governments to use clear‑and‑objective regulations for exterior building design and limits public design‑review meetings to a single hearing.
Lede: Staff proposed to translate design‑related rules into clear, objective regulations in the zoning code (Chapter 92), review most projects administratively, and preserve the Design Review Board (DRB) as a narrow, quasi‑judicial body that hears requests for “alternative compliance” where a project seeks a qualitative departure from objective standards.
Why this matters: HB 1293 prohibits design‑review practices that reduce allowable density, height or bulk below the base zoning and limits public process to a single meeting. The law therefore requires cities to convert discretionary design guidance into measurable standards or move reviews out of multi‑meeting DRB processes.
Staff recommendation: Framework consultants and city staff recommended the following model: 1) move bulk/scale and other measurable elements into Chapter 92 as clear, measurable standards; 2) conduct administrative design review by staff for compliance with Chapter 92 (with public notice and opportunity to comment prior to final staff decision); 3) allow limited, objective criteria for minor administrative modifications; and 4) retain the DRB only to consider alternative compliance requests (substantial qualitative departures from standards) at a single public hearing. Staff noted risks: if the DRB is reduced to infrequent exception hearings it may be difficult to keep volunteers engaged.
What council asked: Council members supported retaining a meaningful public role and recommended that the DRB remain involved for alternative‑compliance review, that membership be professionalized (design professionals plus a small number of resident representatives) if the DRB meets infrequently, and that staff return with a clear interim process if the code rewrite takes longer than planned. The planning commission will review draft code language in November with a public hearing planned for December; council action is expected in January.
Technical background: Staff reviewed other jurisdictions — Redmond and Edmonds have moved to administrative models; Edmonds uses an Architectural Design Board for departures at a single public hearing. Staff documented that in recent years many Kirkland DRB projects required multiple conceptual and response conferences, which HB 1293 no longer allows.
Next steps: Staff will translate design guidance into clear, objective code standards, draft amendment language, plan public notice procedures for staff led reviews, and return to planning commission and council for hearings. Staff emphasized the need to consider DRB composition and to preserve transparency through public notice and posted materials.
Speakers: Tony Levitt (Senior Planner), framework consultant and staff from Planning & Building led the briefing; councilors asked for a professionalized DRB for alternative compliance hearings and asked that the public notice process be robust.
