Clyde Hill News: Administration proposes regulating “Community Design and Aesthetics”
Planning Commissioners express concern over “Architectural Review Board” made of city staff; new survey of residents goes live
Clyde Hill’s administration is seeking additional authority to regulate the design and aesthetics of homes in Clyde Hill, according to documents and discussion at the city’s Planning Commission meeting.
More on this topic below, along with where you can find the city’s latest online survey to provide feedback about where the city should focus its energy and resources.
This week’s Administrator’s Update (link) had no new information about addressing the city’s budget deficit. It did note the resignation of Karl Korsmo, a member of the Civil Service Commission. Residents interested in applying to fill this vacancy should contact the city.
A warm welcome to new subscribers! If someone forwarded you this newsletter, subscribing is free and easy!
Disclaimer: while I am a councilmember on the Clyde Hill City Council, I write this newsletter in my capacity as an individual resident. Any opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily the position of the City. City information and references here are from public sources. I welcome email responses — and if the topic is about City business I will respond from my City email account.
Proposed: Architectural Review Board
For context, Clyde Hill’s comprehensive plan provides the “big picture” goals and policy framework for how it “develops and manages its land as well as how it provides services to the public” (link). The city is several years into its state-mandated periodic update of the plan.
“There are no residential design standards adopted in the city” of Clyde Hill for residential buildings today, according to the Administration’s draft of the Land Use Elements section of the comprehensive plan update (link, p 14).
As a result, Clyde Hill’s homes currently have “a variety of architectural styles, colors, [and] materials” and “community design has been ad hoc.”
Proposal: additional city powers related to design
Mayor Klaas’ administration is pursuing additional powers for the city government, seeking to
establish “standards and desired goals for Community Design and Aesthetics,” (link) according to its presentation at May 2023’s Planning Commission meeting, and
“include Community Design in the Land Use Element of the comprehensive plan,” according to the document presented to the Planning Commission for feedback.
The city’s consultant described how:
The city will be evaluating the need for an Architectural Review Board to review the quality of applications for projects that must be evaluated against design standards.
The Architectural Review Board, according to the consultant,
would need to be made of Staff members only and no members of the public (link)
per Washington state law.
The reason why: “Advised by city staff”
“Community design is not required” by state law, according to the consultant hired by Mayor Klaas’ administration to prepare the draft proposal.
“The reason that we included a community design section is based on the feedback that we got during the visioning survey from the community last year… but also as advised by City staff.” (link)
For reference, this 2022 community survey had 27 responses, according to city staff. Slides summarizing that survey are here (link).
It’s not clear how 27 survey responses prioritizing “safety, friendly neighborhood, location, responsible governance, views, and natural environment” resulted in a proposed architectural review board for all residential development:
Planning Commission feedback
Feedback from planning commissioners was cautiously negative about the proposal.
“If it’s not required, I don’t know I’m for adding the section because it feels like it’s starting to feel more like an HOA where there’s a lot of restriction,” said one commissioner, expressing concern about “turning our city into an HOA.”1
The city’s consultant explained that “We could also choose to strike residential design and let that just be a separate endeavor. Not including it in the comp[rehensive] plan doesn’t mean you can’t pursue it” separately.
One option not explicitly discussed involves focusing design standards on multi-family housing and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Washington state recently passed legislation that would require Clyde Hill and other cities to permit multi-family housing as well as more than one ADU for a single family home.
Better city code
A key goal of the comprehensive plan update is to guide the efforts of the city staff, City Council, and Planning Commission related to the city’s laws and policies, particularly the municipal code.
The document and discussion at the Planning Commission meeting offer clear examples of why residents engaged in anything from mild landscaping to substantial remodels have expressed frustration with the current state of city code and enforcement.
Consistency and fairness
City laws and policies should be clear enough that the need for interpretation is minimal. Enforcement should be consistent.
From the administration’s draft proposal on the topic of developing Community Design and Aesthetics standards:
“Application and interpretation of code have been on a case-by-case basis as projects have been reviewed”
Rules diverging from reality on the ground
As another example, commercial use in Clyde Hill “requires a minimum lot area of 35,000 square feet,” according to the “Commercial Land and Job Capacity” section of the document. The total commercial zone area of Clyde Hill is less than that, at ~29,000 square feet across the city’s two commercially zoned lots:
While the minimum residential lot size in Clyde Hill is 20,000 square feet, just over half the lots in Clyde Hill are smaller than that minimum. The average lot size is less than 19,000 square feet:
Many residents have expressed frustration in response to inconsistent enforcement actions related to unclear municipal code (for example, CHMC 17.37 (“Fences”), link).
Whither stormwater?
Also puzzling: the document’s treatment of stormwater doesn’t reflect resident reality or feedback from the city council. The half-page treatment is cursory and downplays the severity of the issues residents and the city face.
For reference, video of stormwater flooding that the administration presented at a public meeting in July of 2021 when it requested the city council authorize funds for repairs:
New resident survey available
The administration just posted a new Comprehensive Plan Community Survey for the community. It’s available here, link, at SurveyMonkey.
It includes questions about
“top priorities for the community to address over the next 20 years,” with options ranging from climate change to the design of city signage as well as enforcement of private property maintenance.
“top priorities for City infrastructure investment over the next 20 years,” including improving city hall, sidewalks and bike paths, and stormwater.
“the most important objectives of the City’s efforts to regulate perimeter hedges,” with options about enforcement, sight lines at intersections that are mandated by state law, and “prevent[ing] the look of a walled enclosure.”
According to the city, “The priorities identified by this survey will inform the 2024 Clyde Hill Comprehensive Plan and drive future City service and infrastructure investment.”
Thanks for reading! Please forward and share with your friends and neighbors, and if you are not already getting this newsletter, subscribing is both easy and free.
Dean Hachamovitch
Homeowner associations, or HOAs, often tightly manage details (house color, landscaping, mailbox appearance, etc.) in communities.