I’ll say it. Seattle’s Design Review Board process is ineffective and needs to be completely rebuilt.

I have the day off today, so it’s giving me lots of time to read. And what’s my reading of choice? How about land use decisions (I know, it’s sad).

But…I did find something that really highlights how ineffective Seattle’s Design Review Board has become. (And this isn’t due to the quality of the board members, it’s really due to the fact that they are not permitted to make significant changes to proposed projects).

The Design Review process is supposed to give citizens, the applicants and the City an equal voice in discussions. However, what happens is that there is alot of horse trading that goes on specifically between the board and the applicant during the final 25 minutes of the meeting. (The board also hears back directly from DPD if the applicant has any concerns about their recommendations). Citizens are specifically told to be quiet during this time and not interrupt the discussions that go on between the City and the applicants. So…here’s what is supposed to happen with this process.

Design Review “Triangle”
The Design Review Program is built on the concept of an equilateral triangle, with the three major stakeholders — the citizens of Seattle, the project applicant, and the City — given a voice in the process. Design Review Board meetings are structured to mirror this relationship, with a meeting’s 90 minutes broken down as follows:

• 30 minutes for the project applicant’s presentation and the Design Review Board’s clarifying questions;
• 20 minutes for citizens to address their concerns and ideas to the Design Review Board about the project’s design; and
• 25 minutes for the Design Review Board to deliberate and make recommendations to the project applicant.

So, what’s an example of horse trading? Well, how about getting zoning variances pushed through in exchange for insignificant concessions to citizens. One example I found occured with the proposal for what is now the fini condos on Phinney Ridge. While reading through the design review decision for this project, the applicant was able to get a total of seven zoning exemptions.

• Reducing the rear setback of the building from 18 to 10 feet (putting the building 8 feet closer to the single family homes
• Increasing level two and three lot coverage - making the building boxier and bulkier
• Reducing the sidewalk width in the front of the building
• Reducing aisle width for commercial parking spaces - this creates more parking spaces
• Reducing % of large parking stalls - again, more parking
• Reducing setback between fence and retaining wall - coming up with a nice landscaping solution would be too expensive
• Replacing sight triangle on driveway with mirrors - creates more retail space

The neighbors challenged many of these departures, but what did they receive in exchange? Not too much. Here are the conditions the design review board imposed in exchange for the zoning departures.

• The canopies along Greenwood Ave. N. should be redesigned to be more continuous and
  in a form which in most areas should extend at least six feet from the building.
• Art pieces proposed at each side of the pedestrian entry point on Greenwood Ave. N.
  must be of a large enough scale to be compatible with the size of the building elements
  they are part of.
• The landscape along the west extent of the proposal site continue to be varied, a mix of
  deciduous and evergreen trees and bushes, but, that it be intensified with additional trees added, especially in the north and southern extents of the rear setback area. At a
  minimum, six more trees, half evergreen and half deciduous, shall be added.
• Garage exhaust fans shall be internal to the building at as great a distance as is practical
  and no restaurant exhaust shall be directed out any side of the building.
• Along the south side the arborvitae proposed are a good screening solution and shall be
  maintained.
• The sidewalk in front of the garage entry shall have a different texture and possibly a
  different color from the remainder of the sidewalk in front of the Project.

I just don’t think that the citizens were well served with this recommendation, because these conditions are minor cosmetic changes. And what’s really disappointing, is that there are lots of other decisions like this one. If we want to put some more teeth into the Design Review process, maybe it’s going to require a voter led initiative, because it doesn’t look like it’s going to happen from either the mayor or the city council. What do you think?

Photo of the single family homes behind the new fini building