skip navigation
MRSC logo

Have a Research Question?

Ask MRSC

Have a Research Question?

Ask MRSC

Design Review

This page provides an overview of Washington State's design review laws, including the requirements for design standards, permitting, and public meetings. Also includes examples of design elements in comprehensive plans and codes, as well as review board processes. 

For a general overview of comprehensive plans, see our page Comprehensive Planning.

Overview

Design review involves the local government’s examination of public and private projects to ensure they meet quality standards and are compatible with surrounding developments. This practice is most often applied to the construction of commercial and multifamily buildings, particularly in areas such as downtowns, historic districts, or specific transportation corridors, but may also involve single-family dwellings.

Design review is not state- or federally-mandated. So, some local governments choose to adopt a design review process, while others do not.

Design review focuses on:

  • The building’s overall design;
  • The quality of materials, landscaping, and open space;
  • The building’s fit with nearby properties and the street;
  • The building’s functionality with the site’s features, like views or slopes; and
  • The access to the site for pedestrians and vehicles.

There are three types of design review processes. The first type of review is conducted by an appointed design review board of volunteers that include architects, landscape architects, urban designers, and other design professionals, as well as local, non-expert representatives. Administrative design review is handled by city staff, typically planners. A third option is a “hybrid” process, in which some project designs are approved administratively, while others are approved by a design review board.

In 2023, the legislature amended the Growth Management Act (GMA) to streamline local permit review processes and support housing development in Washington State. Moving forward, any design review standards imposed by GMA planning jurisdictions must include only clear and objective design standards. The law also requires concurrent permit review processes and allows for only one public meeting in the design review process. Also, in 2023, changes to state law related to design review for middle housing and accessory dwelling units were also enacted. For more details, see the section on Design Review Limitations in the Growth Management Act below.  

Image credit: City of Redmond

What Is the Purpose of Design Review?

Communities implement design review programs for several reasons. A primary goal is to enhance pedestrian features and improve areas' aesthetic qualities. For new developments, design review typically aims to create a unique identity. In older neighborhoods, the focus is often on ensuring new developments fit well with the existing character of the area. 

In addition to community objectives, design review helps ensure compliance with zoning laws regarding height, density, and setbacks (Ch. 36.70A RCW). This process also promotes high-quality design by involving experts like architects and urban planners.

Further, design review boards often encourage community involvement, allowing local residents and stakeholders to participate. This participatory approach fosters a sense of ownership and accountability in urban development.

See the Seattle Design Review Program's video “What Is Design Review?” for more information. 

Design Review Limitations in the Growth Management Act

In 2023, the legislature amended the Growth Management Act to include design review requirements and limitations. The law requires local governments to use a design review process to develop clear, objective design standards that do not lower the density, height, bulk, or scale below the standard rules for the zone.

Under RCW 36.70A.630, design review must follow only clear and objective standards for the exterior design of new development. A clear and objective design standard is one that:

  • Includes at least one guideline to help applicants know if their design is acceptable; and/or
  • Does not reduce the allowed density, height, bulk, or scale of a project below zone limits.

Note that the requirements above do not apply to standards that apply only to designated landmarks or historic districts established under a local preservation ordinance.

Additionally, all design review must be done concurrently with other project reviews and can include no more than one public meeting. RCW 36.70A.815 also prohibits cities and counties from requiring façade modulation or upper-level setbacks for certain types of residential projects including affordable housing, passive house construction, modular construction, mass timber construction, and conversions of existing buildings to housing.

The legislature also addressed design standards in the context of middle housing and accessory dwelling units. These were later codified into the following:

  • RCW 36.70A.635 requires that if a jurisdiction is applying design review for middle housing, only administrative design review may be required. Administrative design review is defined in RCW 36.70A.030 as a process “whereby an application is reviewed, approved, or denied by the planning director or the planning director's designee based solely on objective design and development standards without a public pre-decision hearing” with some limited exceptions.
  • RCW 36.70A.681(1)(h) prohibits cities and counties from imposing stricter design standards on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) than those of principal units.

Cities, towns, and counties must comply with these new requirements six months after their next GMA periodic updates under RCW 36.70A.130. For deadline reminders, the Washington State Department of Commerce maintains a periodic update interactive map. 

Examples of Design Review Code Amendments Following Ch. 36.70A RCW Updates

Examples of Design Elements in Comprehensive Plans

Administrative Design Review Processes

Administrative Design Review (ADR) is a streamlined process used in many jurisdictions to evaluate certain development projects without requiring a full Design Review Board meeting. ADR is conducted by city planning or design staff, rather than a formal Design Review Board. Staff evaluate a proposed project for compliance with pre-established design standards and guidelines. 

This administrative process often applies to smaller-scale projects, such as single-family homes, ADUs, townhouses, or minor renovations, or when a local government has not created a Design Review Board or Committee. As mentioned above, RCW 36.70A.635 requires that if a jurisdiction is applying design review for middle housing, then only administrative design review may be required. Administrative design review is defined in the GMA at RCW 36.70A.030.

Further, RCW 58.17.145 requires cities to establish an administrative approval process for lot splits, which may occur concurrently with residential building permit review. The law limits the process to administrative design review only, prohibiting predecision public hearings for lot split applications.

While public notice may still be required, ADR generally involves fewer public meetings or comment opportunities compared to design review board processes.

Examples of Administrative Design Review Processes

Design Review Board Processes

Full Design Review includes evaluation from the Design Review Board (DRB), a public meeting, and assessment from local agency planning staff. These boards are generally established by local ordinances or resolutions. Members are typically appointed by the mayor or city council and serve fixed terms.

Requirements for board composition and membership are typically described in municipal or county codes. DRBs are usually composed of individuals with expertise in various areas relevant to design, urban planning, and architecture, and may include architects, urban planners, landscape designers, and community members. The goal is to bring a variety of perspectives to the review process, ensuring that design standards are balanced with community needs and values.

Examples of the Design Review Processes

Examples of Design Review Board Qualifications and Obligations

Creating Design Standards/Guidelines

Design review  can be organized in a variety of ways, based on the type of development, geographic location, or a combination of both.

By Type of Development

Single-family homes have design guidelines in some jurisdictions, typically through an administrative review process.

Middle housing (e.g., duplexes, triplexes, and townhouses) design guidelines are more common and typically more detailed. Middle housing is limited to administrative design review to simplify the process and reduce barriers to development (RCW 36.70A.635).

Multifamily residential design guidelines often focus on broader site design issues, such as location  of parking, access to individual units, and design variety.

Mixed-use, commercial, and industrial developments usually involve more detailed review processes due to their larger scale and potential impact on surrounding areas (although it is rare for industrial development to be subject to separate design standards and review processes).

By Geographic Area

Downtown areas often have more stringent and detailed guidelines for consistency.

Historic districts require design review to maintain a consistent character that aligns with the area’s identity (RCW 36.70A.630). See MRSC’s page Historic Preservation for more information.

Subareas or corridors (such as transit-oriented developments) might have design review processes focusing on promoting pedestrian-friendly environments, mixed-use developments, or transportation infrastructure.

Combination of Both

Some cities and towns use a hybrid approach, incorporating both development type and geographic area to apply standards to specific types of developments in particular zones.

Incorporating Community Input

Involving the public ensures that design standards reflect local desires and needs. Some local governments adopt specific public engagement plans with a variety of techniques to solicit public input. See MRSC’s Community Engagement Resources page for more ideas.

The Visual Preference Survey (VPS) is one effective tool for engaging community members. Participants rank images representing different elements of their community, such as streets, houses, and parks, helping planners understand local preferences. The survey's results guide the development of design standards or guidelines that align with the community's aesthetic values.

Examples of Public Engagement Plans and Reports

Examples of Single-Family and Middle Housing Design Standards/Guidelines

Examples of Multifamily and Commercial Design Standards/Guidelines

The following are examples of general design review manuals and standards/guidelines for commercial, mixed-use, and multifamily development, including some code provisions and design review processes.

Examples of Downtown and Subarea Development Design Standards/Guidelines

Quite a few cities have developed specific design standards/guidelines for their downtowns and subareas. Many of the standards focus on integrating transportation options into the designs. Below are some examples.

Legality of Design Review and Selected Court Decisions

Until 1993, there were no Washington appellate cases ruling on the validity of design review ordinances. That year, the Washington State Court of Appeals decided in Anderson v. Issaquah (1993) that Issaquah's design review regulations were invalid due to vagueness. The court nevertheless affirmed the legitimacy of local governments regulating for aesthetics, including design review. This decision highlights the importance of adopting design review standards that provide meaningful guidance and are not subjective.

And since the adoption of RCW 36.70A.630, RCW 36.70A.635, and RCW 36.70A.681 in 2023, GMA planning jurisdictions will need to ensure that their design review regulations meet the statutory requirements, including that they include only clear and objective standards.

MRSC strongly advises cities, towns, and counties to review existing and proposed design review programs and criteria with their attorney's office.

The following are selected court decisions addressing design review:

  • Anderson v. Issaquah (1993) – The court ruled that Issaquah's design review regulations were invalid due to vagueness. It found the guidelines deficient because they did not give meaningful guidance to the applicant or the design review board. The court affirmed the legitimacy of design review by stating that aesthetic standards are an appropriate component of land use governance.
  • Swoboda v. Town of La Conner (1999) – In a challenge to the constitutionality of the town's historic preservation ordinance, the court determined that the ordinance contained ascertainable standards to protect against arbitrary and discretionary enforcement and defined prohibited or required conduct with sufficient definiteness, and therefore was not unconstitutional as applied. The town's preservation ordinance involves design review within the historic district.

Recommended Resources

 
 

Last Modified: December 30, 2025